Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Environmental Taxation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mrs. Helen Brinton: The ballot has given the House the opportunity to hold a timely debate—timely because it is taking place soon after the return of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister from the climate negotiations in Buenos Aires. I was fortunate to be called to speak last July in the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on the preparations for the Buenos Aires talks. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute once again to the Deputy Prime Minister for his considerable achievements in that vital process.
The Government pledged to put the environment at the heart of policy making. We all know that they are committed to ambitious targets for reducing emissions that are seriously damaging the environment both directly and indirectly, through climate change. The two are often connected.
The Select Committee on Environmental Audit, of which I am proud to be a member, was set up to be, in the Deputy Prime Minister's words,
a terrier snapping at the Government's heels".
Some of us believe that we have been not a terrier, but a rottweiler. We have tried to live up to those expectations.
Today's debate should be seen as an extension of that activity. Its subject is the environmental effects of taxation. There are many aspects of that—such as transport, housing, energy and agriculture—on which other hon. Members will want to speak. I shall give a brief introduction and concentrate on some aspects of energy taxation, a matter that is relevant to my constituents in Peterborough.
The basic aim of green tax reform is to shift the burden from "goods" to "bads". "Goods" are economic activities such as income generation, job creation and added value. "Bads" are pollution and excessive use of resources such as energy—excessive from the point of view of society. For example, petrol creates costs in terms of pollution and congestion, which are borne by society. Thus, the consumption of petrol is excessive from a societal point of view. Measures could be designed to help energy-intensive industries to adapt.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Brinton: No, I have just started and I want to make progress.
Other policy instruments could protect potentially disadvantaged groups, such as the rural poor, who are more reliant on cars and would suffer unduly from increased fuel duties.
There is a much greater role for indirect taxation in promoting energy efficiency. Far too many anomalies discriminate against energy conservation materials, whose present high VAT rating is a disincentive for householders to invest in them.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Brinton: I am pleased to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend, and I welcome the debate. As she considers it important to conserve fuel, does she agree that it would have made more sense if the battalion headquarters of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineer 101 Battalion, which was based in my constituency, had stayed there, where there is a population of 300,000, rather than being moved to Queensbury, where there is not a similar population, which will mean more vehicle movements from Lancashire to Wales?

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and sympathise with the sentiments that he has so eloquently expressed.
In his March Budget the Chancellor announced partial VAT relief, with a drop in VAT from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. on the installation of energy-saving materials funded under certain Government grants. That was designed to help people suffering from fuel poverty. My right hon. Friend said that the cut in VAT would help to insulate 40,000 more homes a year, which is good, but it is not a significant benefit to the environment, and it does not cover payments by householders over and above Government grants received.
I know that the Government are pursuing with their European partners the legality of a reduced or even a zero rating, about which there has long been disagreement. Perhaps the Minister will tell us later about progress on that front. I look forward to his comments.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Brinton: I am making progress.
Low-polluting road fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas and so-called city petrol produced by Sainsburys are on sale in my constituency, Peterborough, among other places. Their use would similarly be encouraged by a lower VAT rating. I welcomed some moves in that direction in the last Budget. There is a much larger potential market for such fuels, but if manufacturers and distributors are to make the necessary investment and commitment, they need to know that any policy changes will remain in place and progress for a number of years.
Last February, the Treasury promised
a new approach to environmental taxes that will be fair to future generations.


In the recent pre-Budget report, we read that the Government are
committed to exploring scope for using taxes in the strategy of sustainable development".
However, there are few clues as to when we might expect the results of apparently on-going deliberations. Bound with the bundle of pre-Budget reports issued to all hon. Members—and appearing to be part of them, in the same green and white format—was the Marshall report on economic instruments and the business use of energy. When Sir Colin Marshall, the former chairman of British Airways, was appointed to head a panel of industrialists tasked to investigate energy taxes, one commentator said that it was like
putting King Herod in charge of child care since aviation is one of the worst contributors to climate change and the industry has lobbied hard to ensure that it pays no green taxes.
None the less, the report concluded:
there probably is a role for a tax if businesses of all sizes and from all sectors are to contribute to improved energy efficiency and help meet the UK's emissions targets.
The United Kingdom should obviously make its own decisions about meeting its own considerations. However, there are precedents in other European countries concerning the effects of carbon tax from which we may learn some lessons.
A carbon tax was introduced in Sweden in 1991, and the most recent evaluation found that it had delivered a 9 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions in three years. On the one hand, district heating—which pays the full rate of tax—showed a dramatic switch from fossil fuels to biomass, and fossil fuel use shifted significantly from coal to gas. On the other hand, when the tax rate for industry was reduced in 1993 to 25 per cent. of the full rate, fossil fuel consumption rose, with a corresponding rise in CO2 emissions by 21 per cent. in one Swedish district between 1992 and 1994.
Sir Colin Marshall recommended that a clear signal be given as to the long-term direction of policy in order to help businesses plan for future investment and maximise the environmental impact of a tax. He also said that any measures should be subject to detailed consultation. I am particularly happy to endorse that proposal, especially as the economic and social costs of some proposed taxes may be too high. Other measures, such as voluntary self-regulation, which are often based on enlightened self-interest may work much better—and, indeed, may already be in place. The agricultural interests in my constituency would certainly support that view.
Other proposals might appear to be environmentally friendly in a narrow context—for example, some recycling initiatives—but they involve extra environmental costs, such as transportation, when considered more widely. Consultation is not only desirable but absolutely necessary, often on a case-by-case basis, in order to weigh the advantages and disadvantages and the different interests involved. I know that that is happening now in some cases. However, consultation should not be a recipe for unnecessary delay.
The first report of the Environmental Audit Committee—I am pleased to see members of that Committee from both sides of the House present in the Chamber today—made a recommendation concerning

the potential of the tax system to deliver environmental objectives and make economic development more sustainable. It called on the Government to establish an advisory body on environmental taxation—the Committee has certainly been a terrier, if not a rottweiler—preferably in the form of a green tax commission. I take this opportunity to reiterate that recommendation.
Such a commission, by whatever name, would bring together the different interests involved in a more transparent and neutral forum—the Government are committed to openness—leaving the final decisions to Government. It would invite interested bodies to submit evidence on proposed environmental taxes, and examine the potential pitfalls and trade-offs that might arise from particular decisions.
For example, it would have to establish whether a proposed measure would have an adverse impact on competition, and decide whether that was outweighed by any other advantages that would result. Such bodies need not be yet another layer of bureaucracy. Importantly, the existence of a green tax commission would make it much easier to take an overall strategic view of environmental tax making. I hope that we will not go down the route of a fragmented, "here today, gone tomorrow", piecemeal approach.
The Marshall report concluded that revenues should be recycled in full to business
with at least some of them channelled into schemes aimed directly at promoting energy efficiency … low carbon technologies and/or energy audits/advice for SMEs.
I particularly welcome the latter, as a pioneering audit of city-wide energy, conducted by the Environment City Trust with support from our largest local employer, Perkins Engines, was launched recently in my constituency. I am pleased to report that that launch took place in the presence of the new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). Marshall's last recommendation was:
the design of any tax should ensure that Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is not disadvantaged. It should also aim, where possible, to increase incentives for the take-up of renewable sources of energy.
That is good, but perhaps too cautious. I hope that that will not be the last word on the subject. I regard Marshall as a beginning and not an end in itself.
A major finding of the Peterborough energy audit was that nearly half the city's share of the Kyoto target—which, I am told, is 220,000 tonnes of CO2—could be met by small CHP schemes in business and industry. That sector accounts for about two thirds of CO2 emissions and two thirds of energy spending in the city. We are still awaiting the Department of Trade and Industry's review of renewables—the Environmental Audit Committee is certainly awaiting it with bated breath.
The United Kingdom has a target to produce 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. At present, we have the lowest rate in Europe at around 1 per cent. Studies show that both wind and wave power could meet the United Kingdom's electricity needs three times over and that solar power could provide two thirds of our needs. However, all those forms of power generation require Government support whether by way of interdepartmental co-operation—as occurred between the DTI and the Ministry of Agriculture in the development of energy crops—research and development or changes to the structure and functioning of the electricity market.


The non-fossil fuel obligation, which obliges power companies to buy from more expensive renewable sources, has helped to get the renewables industry going and, in some cases, has driven the price down. However, progress has been intermittent, with modest targets. Recent research shows that the extension of NFFO alone will not allow Government targets to be met. Government investment in renewables has been insignificant compared with the billions of pounds in subsidies granted to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.
European industry leads the world in wind and solar power, and the United Kingdom is a leader in combined heat and power. There are major United Kingdom export opportunities at present, and some of the large oil companies —such BP and shell, to name but two—are beginning to invest heavily in renewables the Government should do all in their power to encourage the development of renewables for the development of renewables for the benefit of the country as a whole and to help avoid catastrophic climate change.
Attending the launch of the energy audit in my constituency—I was particularly pleased to be there—were many of those engaged commercially and otherwise in the promotion of renewables and CHP. I was extremely impressed by the extent and quality of the involvement. Business certainly understands the potential opportunities for creating wealth and employment in this field. A key manufacturer in my constituency, Peter Brotherhood, has just obtained a multi-million-pound contract for supplying wind turbines for a renewable energy scheme in the Fens. That scheme will obviously create jobs both in Peterborough and where the turbines are installed.
I have come to realise that another advantage of renewable energy is that it is localised rather than centralised, and therefore can act to regenerate local communities by creating employment, with a knock-on benefit for the local and regional economies. However, many of those present at the launch made it clear that they need some help—and they need it now. They need a kick start to enable them to obtain a viable toehold in the market, from which to develop, before others gain the crucial lead that in business often means that the weakest and those left behind are driven to the wall.
The current situation has been described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry as "win, win, win". By that, he meant that the encouragement of renewable energy means that the United Kingdom can simultaneously meet its emission targets, boost industry—which is what the Government are pledged to do—and create jobs. In the summer, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told the all-party environment group that the general approach of the Treasury to environmental taxation might be described as "prudent enthusiasm". "Prudent" is a favourite word in Treasury-speak.
I hope that the debate will highlight the degree of enthusiasm in the House—and, indeed, the country—for environmental taxation, and signal that the need for it is rather more urgent than people appear to believe at present.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Madam Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing this important debate. As a

fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I agree with her that the Committee has turned into a rottweiler, and has rottweilered many Ministers in its 12-month span. Environmental taxation is especially important to that Committee; indeed, it is important to us all—it is the coming issue with which the House will be involved.
The hon. Member for Peterborough referred to the Labour party's repeated commitments on the environment, and mentioned the manifesto commitment to
put the environment at the heart of policy making".
When the Financial Secretary appeared before our Committee, she reiterated that she wanted to
ensure that the environment is placed at the centre of our objectives for the tax system".
One would hope that the Government considered the issue to have equal importance, but, alas, the warm words are not being matched by action.
As one who has been a member of the Finance Bill Standing Committee for the past two years, I know at first hand how difficult it is to put amendments relating to the environment—which, in most cases, are tabled by Opposition Members—on to the agenda. During the Committee's consideration of this year's Budget, only one amendment on the environment tabled by an Opposition Member—and precious little from Labour Members—was accepted. It dealt with a tiny technical issue which I happened to raise, in respect of the taxation treatment of company cars that had been converted to road fuel gases.
In the whole of the 1998 Budget, there was no mention of preferential treatment of taxation for road fuel gases; no mention of incentives to promote oxidation catalysts; no mention of incentives to promote use of brown-field sites in preference to ripping up the green belt, and the discrepancy between value added tax on renovation and new-build remains; and no mention of corporate incentives to promote the preferential tax treatment of company public transport season tickets. There was nothing to tackle the distortions on company car mileage rates—we still encourage the absurdity of an incentive for people to drive more miles; nothing to deter water pollution through pesticides; and nothing to encourage the more environmentally sustainable use of rural land.
That bears out the fears of the Environmental Audit Committee, whose pre-Budget report said:
It is difficult to reconcile the status of environmentally sustainable growth as a 'core feature' of the Government's economic policy.
Indeed, on environmental matters the previous Budget amounted to an action-free zone. Friends of the Earth called it "green as smog". More politely, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
So far, the Treasury has made little substantive progress in using the tax system to protect the environment.
More recently, the green Budget failed to tackle the issue, with the exception of the bludgeon measure of the energy tax and a consultation paper on vehicle excise duty. The comprehensive spending review made virtually no mention of environmental considerations, but there was a lot about spending more money on the back of dodgy growth estimates, with no link to their environmental impact.
The job of the Environmental Audit Committee has been the auditing of the environmental impacts of Government policy. In the Chancellor's speech to the


Confederation of British Industry conference on 2 November, there were plenty of old chestnuts about global turmoil, being prudent and cautious, productivity top-up, Europe, prudence and investment—that old one again—and mature patriotism. Despite the fact that the energy tax announced a few weeks ago will have the biggest impact on business, there was not a single word about the environment or the use of environmental taxes on business.
Even the Prime Minister's Mansion House speech a few days ago to the heart of the business and investment community—which these days might be expected to act as an antidote to the Chancellor's own thoughts—contained not a word about the relationship between business and the environment and green taxes. What Conservative Members fear most is that the broad-brush use of tax in the name of environmental improvement is a surrogate measure to fill the coffers of the Treasury.
The insensitive use of tax alone can be counter-productive. There has been no more stark example of that than the state of the British road haulage industry, where the combination of the increased 6 per cent. fuel escalator and the ending of the European cabotage regulations on 1 July has meant a flood of French and Belgian lorries on United Kingdom roads which pay no tax and import diesel from France and Belgium. Diesel is taxed at 24.5p per litre in France and at 19.1p per litre in Belgium. In the United Kingdom, it is taxed at a whopping 43.7p per litre. That is hardly a level playing field.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Government have been in office for only a year or so, most of that difference came about through the imposition of the fuel price escalator by the previous Conservative Government, who raised £25 billion in extra taxation. Does the hon. Gentleman now think that that was wrong or right?

Mr. Loughton: Not at all; the hon. Gentleman misses my point. I said that a combination of the increased escalator and the ending of cabotage rules on 1 July has been a dangerous combination and has had an immediate effect on the British freight haulage industry. If the hon. Gentleman had remained a member of the Environmental Audit Committee for more than 10 days, he might have been aware of those facts. As a result, British lorry firms are seriously considering moving to the continent to avoid the extra taxes—taxes which, by the end of 2002, are likely to be costing the freight haulage industry an extra £5 billion a year.
Who wins in all this? Not the environment, because we are simply exchanging British fumes from British lorries on British roads for Belgian fumes from Belgian lorries on British roads. Who wins? Not the British freight business, because about 26,000 jobs are at stake. It is not enough, as the Minister may say, that the allowance of £500 against vehicle excise duty for particular traps being fitted will compensate, when it costs £3,500 to fit those systems. Who wins? Not the Government, as business moves to the continent and pays taxes to other European Governments.
The aggregates tax is another example; a broad-brush approach to taxing quarrying will not result in reduced quarrying of material, unless we shut down the schools, hospitals and road-building programmes.
I shall deal briefly with the energy tax and Lord Marshall's report, which the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned. The report turned out to be a downstream tax levied on business consumers. It is not a carbon tax, because a genuine carbon tax would be levied upstream: coal-fired power stations would pay most; gas-fired power stations would pay less; and nuclear power stations would pay nothing.
The Government have prejudged the issue by blocking the expansion of gas-fired power stations for political reasons, but the switch to gas has had the biggest effect on reducing CO2 emissions. Indeed, it has been calculated that
burning 25 million tonnes of coal, rather than getting the same power from gas, produces in extra pollution an extra 28.7 million tonnes of CO2, 425,000 tonnes of SO2, 14,000 tonnes of particulates and 6,000 tonnes of black smoke. Sticking with coal cuts gross domestic product by 0.15 percentage points for each of the next five years, according to the Treasury's own model.
Manufacturing industry could be damaged most, when it is suffering from the high levels of the pound and the shrinking economy. Costs will be passed on, which will be inflationary, and we need to know from the report which sectors of business will pay most.
What about high energy users such as the chemical industry, which is already suffering extensive international competition? What about the biggest area of energy waste by business—shops that blow hot air on to the high street and offices, where energy demand has increased by 140 per cent. in the past 12 years as a result of air conditioning?
The report is full of contradictions, with the Government already having tried to rig the market in favour of environmentally unfriendly coal. As the Chancellor will have found when he delivered his speech earlier this month, the CBI is firmly against it. The additional costs of £2 billion a year will be a big tax on industry, at a time when it can least afford to pay it. Even if the recommendations are introduced in a tax-neutral way, they will encourage a further switch away from manufacturing to services.
The one redeeming feature of the Marshall report is the reference to tradeable emissions permits. I hope that the Government will today give a commitment that they will introduce those well before the 2008 date that was suggested by the Kyoto protocol.
We have much to learn from the United States, where emissions trading is well advanced as a market mechanism that promotes cost-effective reductions by allowing countries or companies to trade emissions allowances. Every emitter must have an allowance for each tonne of sulphur dioxide that it emits. So far, acid rain-causing emissions are being cut ahead of schedule, at 50 per cent. of the expected cost. Trading gets incentives right by encouraging cuts where they can be achieved at the lowest cost.
The United States is already working with several developed and developing countries to help to strengthen their capacity to measure emissions and to participate in an emissions-trading system with high standards. In Australia, just the other day, the Sydney futures exchange announced plans to launch a market in permits to emit greenhouse tax. The exchange will operate spot, forward and futures markets in the permits, to be issued under legislation to meet the Kyoto targets. The exchange could become a hub for greenhouse-gas trading in the whole


Pacific region. In this country, British Petroleum has established, off its own bat, a pilot scheme for trading carbon emissions among its subsidiary companies.
Those are all market structures with incentives to promote environmental good practice and to reduce costs. The Government need to get on with a similar system in this country, but we need much more imaginative thinking on linking environment and taxes. On road fuel gases, we need to follow the example of cutting taxes drastically on lead-free petrol that was set by the previous Government. Liquid petroleum gas, which is more environmentally friendly, costs 318.2 ecu for every 1,000 litres in the United Kingdom. The next nearest costs only 201.9 ecu. In France, the cost is 63 ecu. In Sweden and Belgium there is no tax on LPG.
We need a bold move such as that, where taxation as one tool can be effective. We need the rent-a-room scheme, for example—another innovation that was set up by the last Conservative Government. We need to encourage more diverse use of homes on brown-field land before ripping up green-field sites.
On taxation on company cars, we need incentives to encourage more car sharing among people going to work, preferential taxation for company season tickets for public transport travel, disincentives to do more mileage, and proper incentives to convert to LPG—well above and beyond the tinkering in the Budget. There should not be just a blunt increase in fuel, which we know prejudices most the rural driver who has little choice.
There has been another innovative idea in my constituency. Northbrook college has just bought at its own expense and on its own initiative 50 bicycles through a deal with a local bicycle seller. It has made them available free of charge to its students on a year-by-year basis to encourage more cycling to college rather than car use. If the Government were to kick-start such schemes throughout the country, the attractions to colleges, businesses and industries alike would be immense, but they need some kick-starting by the Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit was to set up a green-tax commission. The Government have gone the route of a Monetary Policy Committee and independence, in certain terms, for the Bank of England. Surely a green-tax commission that is independent of political interference could bring some benefits.
Remember that environmental taxes can mean lower taxes for good practice, not inevitably higher ones to clobber everyone indiscriminately. Decisions on environmental taxes must be made on a case-by-case basis, with due regard to the most effective mix of tax, regulation, voluntary agreements and other instruments.
A few weeks ago, the New Statesman, not a Conservative-minded magazine, said:
It is hard to detect any sign of commitment by this government to an energy policy that will shift our entire system on to a sustainable footing in the longer term. It has quite a lot to do with a complete lack of enthusiasm for the environment on the part of No. 10.
By contrast, the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), enjoyed a reputation as the most influential Secretary of State for the Environment ever, according to Friends of the Earth. He

was responsible for setting up the Environment Agency, for implementing a comprehensive biodiversity plan and for introducing ambitious recycling targets, among many other measures. That followed the "green-blue", effective and practical approach to environmental good practice that was started by Baroness Thatcher.
Conservative Members believe in sensible environmental taxation, but only as part of a range of measures, including the use of sensible regulation that harnesses the power of the market, the promotion of property rights, the creation of a low-tax regime, the favouring of voluntary action and local impact, the trusting of technology, insisting on sound science and working at an international level.
It was Conservative Ministers who set the pace on environmental good practice over many years. I look forward to Labour Ministers starting to show signs of wanting to catch us up soon.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to join her in an Adjournment debate, as I am also a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and we campaigned for many years together in Kent before her migration to Peterborough. She was a feisty campaigner, and I know that she continues to represent her constituents with the steel with which she approached campaigning in Kent.
I wish to focus on one green taxation issue which has been referred to briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—taxation on the renovation of empty properties. It is essential that we harmonise value added tax at 5 per cent. for the renovation of long-standing empty properties. It is currently applied at the full rate of 17.5 per cent., yet, for newly built homes on green-field sites, it is applied at a zero rate.
My contribution follows the excellent report on housing by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It marked a vital contribution to the White Paper "Planning for the Communities of the Future." In its recommendations, it concurred with the earlier recommendation of Environmental Audit Committee calling for VAT on conversions and renovations to be reduced to as low a level as possible.
The Government's response was positive. They agreed that the current situation was an anomaly. Indeed, since the response, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has said that the way in which we apply VAT on old properties and not on new ones is a massive anomaly.
In the response, the Government said:
Unifying VAT rates would help to provide a more level playing field for conversions and thus be more consistent with our objectives for accommodating household growth.
However, the report went on to say:
There are other economic and technical issues to be considered, such as the impact on House prices and tax administration and the legality under European Law.
I have spoken on the issue in an Adjournment debate and during a 10-minute rule Bill debate. I have tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by nearly


100 Members from both sides of the House. This morning, I want to deal with some of the economic and technical issues that were mentioned in the Government's response to the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.
The environment faces considerable pressure if we are to provide all the homes that we need. Therefore, it is essential that we have a tax framework that encourages us to make more use of what we already have. Unlocking the empty homes is just one way in which to do that, but, to begin with, we need to be clear about how many properties we are talking about.
There are some 800,000 empty homes in England and Wales, a wasted resource. If we put them all together, we would have the sixth largest urban conurbation in the country next to Tyneside; that gives the scale.
In a written answer in June, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the cost of reducing VAT for the refurbishment of all those properties to 5 per cent. would be £1.1 billion. In a further reply, my hon. Friend said that the income generated by the introduction of 5 per cent. VAT on all new-build homes would be about £550 million. There is a huge gap.
We need to be clear about the numbers involved, and about what we are defining. In February this year, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published its annual housing investment programme returns from local authorities, which showed that there were 230,000 long-standing empty homes in the private sector—that is, homes that had been empty for a year or more. It is on that figure that the argument for harmonisation of VAT should focus.
Members of Parliament see such homes in their constituencies year in, year out. They are the homes that blight our inner cities, and they could be put to better use. We could provide decent dwellings for families, protecting the countryside and regenerating our inner cities, and also meet the housing needs of the future. The present VAT arrangements only provide disincentives to builders, as the Government's response recognises.
I am not sure whether the Department is aware of the figures. When, in July, I asked what was the total number of long-standing empty properties, the Department said that it was not available—that it could only provide the number of homes that had been empty for six months, which was 400,000. When I asked the Treasury what would be the cost of reducing VAT on that number to 5 per cent., I was told that it would be £300 million. Eventually, then, we can arrive at an approximate figure of £160 million in loss of revenue for the Treasury if VAT was reduced to 5 per cent. on the 230,000 long-standing empty homes in England. If the introduction of 5 per cent. VAT on new build would generate £550 million, the Treasury would actually be better off.
What about administration? I understand the concern about fraud, but systems are already in place. As I have said, local authorities have information on empty properties, which they are required to provide as part of their council tax returns. They could provide exemption certificates for the properties identified.
European law is clearly a difficult hurdle, but I am confident. The Treasury team won the argument on the reduction of VAT on fuel, to which we were committed,

and I think that they could win this argument too. Given the way in which VAT exemptions are currently being applied to new build, it is difficult to argue that they are consistent with the criteria. Article 17 of the sixth directive allows VAT exemptions provided that they are maintained for
clearly definable social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer".
It follows that the current VAT arrangements allow a millionaire's new home to be built on a green-field site for "social reasons". It is certainly of "benefit", but it is not for social reasons in housing terms.
The conversion of a barn is zero-rated. How many families in housing need were rehoused in such conversions in 1994, the year in which that exemption was introduced? Just one.
In Medway, our empty homes strategy enabled us to bring 100 homes back into use, working in partnership with housing associations. Social landlords are not exempt from VAT, but, with harmonisation, we could have provided 15 more homes for families on low incomes. There are some 3,000 empty homes in my borough, which could make a significant contribution to the requirement in the local plan for Medway to provide 13,000 homes.
We should also consider the matter of house prices. The average value of arable land is £3,000 per acre, which can increase to £400,000 per acre when planning permission is given. There is plenty of room for a modest 5 per cent. increase.
I believe that harmonising VAT on long-standing empty properties would provide the building industry with the necessary incentives, protecting our countryside and regenerating our inner cities. I am confident that the Treasury team will examine the possibilities closely, working in conjunction with the DETR, so that we can improve the environment and provide a sustainable taxation base for housing.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing this welcome debate. I believe that environmental taxation could underpin a huge reform of our tax system, but such a reform will require imagination and courage.
In February, the Treasury promised such a new approach to environmental taxes. It echoed that promise in a recent pre-Budget report, saying that the Government were
committed to exploring the scope for using taxes
in their sustainable development strategy. A welcome process of consultation has been embarked on, not least through the Marshall report, but so far little action has been taken, and no timetable has been drawn up.
What concerns me most is the lack of vision in regard to the place of environmental taxation in the overall tax system, and how it should be introduced. So far, we have seen no more than a continuation of the Conservative Government's record. Ad hoc increases in what are described as environmental taxes have been seen as tax-raising rather than as tax-changing—in my view, the latter is the fundamental principle of environmental taxation. There has been an increase in the fuel tax escalator, but no commensurate cut in other taxes. There


has been an increase in the landfill tax, but, unlike the original introduction of the tax, that increase involves no hypothecated cut in another tax. Previously, employers' national insurance was cut, and that was seen as a benefit of the introduction of that "green" tax. If the process continues, we risk destroying any public support for, or belief in, environmental taxation.

Mr. Loughton: How does what the hon. Gentleman has said tally with the last Government's 25 per cent. cut in duty on LPG, and the fact that the landfill tax was introduced with a compensatory allowance for a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions? Those were not overall tax-raising measures.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said about the landfill tax. I said exactly that. As for his first point, the last Government raised £25 billion in increased fuel duties; nothing like that was spent on the small cuts in duty on LPG and unleaded fuel. I welcome those cuts, but there was no deal. The last Government raised an extra £25 billion net through increases in fuel taxation. That is why I believe that we should return to first principles.
Environmental taxation provides incentives for the continuous improvement of environmental performance. It thus introduces a market-led mechanism to find cost-effective ways of securing change. That is one clear benefit, but taxation is not an alternative to regulation. Regulation lays the base: it underpins the level of what can be allowed. Taxation must come on top of that. It can raise revenue to pay for improvements, and I welcome the Government's saying that they may introduce road pricing to finance better local transport. When charges are introduced to provide a clear benefit, it is appropriate to use the revenue for such investment.
As for the wider issue of general environmental taxation, I believe that, to win support, it requires a larger vision. Income, jobs and added value are all heavily taxed, although we want higher incomes, more jobs and more added value. Instead, we should be taxing pollution and the excessive use of resources. We all talk about that—the hon. Member for Peterborough rightly did so herself—but we need to strike a genuine bargain with the public. We need to make it clear that, when we talk of environmental taxation, we are talking not of a general process of tax increases dressed up in a green gown, but of radical reform of the tax system.
I can give two examples that demonstrate the importance of such reform. The first is the petrol price escalator, on which, as I have said, the last Government raised £25 billion, and on which the new Government plan to raise some £9 billion. However, neither the previous nor the current Government expressed a clear commitment to a substantive shift in taxation alongside those escalators. So far, Governments have been protected from real public anger about the escalators because raw material prices have been falling, so that there has been little real-terms impact at the pump. As raw material prices have been falling, the escalators have had nothing like the impact implied by their size. However, the situation may change if oil price increases reach the pump.
Given the massive scale of revenues, there is a real opportunity to do something that will not only help to maintain public support for the process and match the

rhetoric of taxing bads rather than goods, but emphasise the principle that the problem with car ownership is excessive use—specifically excessive use of fuel—and not vehicle ownership itself. For most people—certainly in rural constituencies such as my own—vehicle ownership is a necessary part of daily life. However, very often, people can use more fuel—efficient vehicles and think again about making the very large proportion of very short journeys—which is where the fuel escalator comes in.
If the issue is vehicle use and not vehicle ownership, we should stop taxing ownership as such. I therefore believe that a part of the income that we are raising by such means should be used to abolish vehicle excise duty for all but the most gas-guzzling vehicles. Although there is a principle that we may want to provide a direct disincentive against choosing ownership of the most gas-guzzling vehicles, the issue for the great majority of people is use and not ownership. Abolition of vehicle excise duty would be a strong signal to that effect.
The Government are consulting on vehicle excise duty changes, but we have to face the fact that the difference between £150 a year and £100 a year—as the Chancellor suggested last year—is unlikely to change people's habits when deciding which vehicle to buy. In the context of car ownership, that sum—although it will undoubtedly be pocketed with cheer—is too small.
Abolishing vehicle excise duty could make a real difference in people's decisions on which vehicles to buy. Most significantly, abolition could make a difference in which vehicles fleet buyers decide to buy. We know that most larger-engine vehicles were purchased originally by the company car market and sold subsequently into the second-hand market. Those vehicles' lack of fuel economy is discounted by the low prices that they achieve on the secondhand market. Buyers of the cars therefore compensate themselves in advance. Vehicle excise duty would be a direct way of dealing with that situation. If we do not do something about such situations, we shall lose basic public support for the principle of environmental taxation.
The second issue that I should like to deal with is the carbon tax and energy taxation. The Marshall report was very good news on the issue. Given Lord Marshall's background as an extremely experienced business man in an industry in which fuel costs comprise a significant part of overall costs£I do not think that anyone had thought of him as a great environmentalist before he was appointed to his new role£it was extremely significant that his report argued for energy taxation.
One conclusion of the Marshall report was:
there probably is a role for a tax if businesses of all sizes and from all sectors are to contribute to improved energy efficiency".
Although that sentence sounds rather full of caveats, the report goes much further, arguing comprehensively for the introduction of energy taxation. The point—it is often lost—that is being made in that quotation is that Marshall does not believe that a trading system, which is the explored alternative, would be an effective mechanism to embrace all business. He believes that such a system could apply to the largest businesses—although it would be complex and difficult to introduce—but could not be introduced for all business. He therefore favours taxation over the alternatives that have been examined, and that is an important part of his conclusions.


I have a couple of important reservations about the matter. The first is that Lord Marshall suggests that such taxation should cover all energy and not only carbon energies. Taxation would therefore apply as much to energy from renewable sources as it does to energy from the most polluting sources. He said that he had reached the conclusion that it would not be possible to differentiate between the types of energy, because there would not be such taxation of domestic fuel.
Liberal Democrats have argued that such taxation should be applied across the board precisely for those reasons, and could be introduced now, at a time of falling energy prices—so that energy prices are at least kept roughly at current levels and are not expected to fall, thereby reducing incentives to invest in future energy savings. That would be one solution to the dilemma.
The Government will have to find a way in which they can target carbon fuels without imposing a general energy tax. If they cannot, the tax would fall at the first—environmental—hurdle of justification. That is precisely where VAT on fuel came a cropper for the previous Government. Not only was that tax self-evidently targeted at the non-polluting fuels: it was a financial tax-grab rather than part of a tax change. There was no big tax cut to go with it.
Lord Marshall made my next point, which is that revenues raised from an energy tax must be recycled into other tax cuts. I believe that such a proposal is likely to receive as much support from the business sector as it is from ordinary people. At the general election, Liberal Democrats fought on a policy of cutting VAT and employer's national insurance, to boost jobs and to help those who pay extra energy bills by cutting their other bills.
We now suggest being more direct and using the revenue gradually to raise income tax thresholds so that £10,000 is tax-free for every individual. That would be a very direct incentive for jobs, income, earning and hard work. It would also be direct compensation for any extra costs that people may pay, more than outweighing any increase in domestic fuel costs—which are nevertheless falling.
Those examples show clearly not only the role that environmental taxation can play but the pitfalls surrounding such taxation. The biggest single message must be one of vision, by placing the role of environmental taxation clearly in the context of reform of the wider tax system. Such taxation will not have public support if it is seen as a back door way of raising taxes—which the Chancellor can claim are good ones, whereas everyone realises that they are simply paying more. Such taxation has to be part of a process of tax reform. If the Government do that, they will make it possible to have a truly reforming series of Budgets in this Parliament.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing this important debate. I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) specifically on his campaign to highlight the differences between VAT treatment of empty and new-build properties.
The Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, have been enormously courageous in asking Lord Marshall to draw up a report on the business use of energy and possible tax measures to reduce business energy use. Like other hon. Members, I look forward to hearing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the Treasury's thinking on the Marshall report. As I, too, am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome him to one of our meetings, so that he can tell us in detail how the Government will make progress on the energy tax agenda.
I shall concentrate this speech on measures that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury might take to encourage the renewable energy sector. The Government have already taken some important initiatives in supporting renewables. The Government's reversal of the previous Administration's cuts in renewables research and development spending—which they had planned to eliminate entirely by 2005—is very welcome. Investment in renewable technologies is essential for lowering their cost, and for ensuring that Britain will be in a position to reap the benefits of the global expansion in renewables, not only creating employment in the United Kingdom but realising the huge benefits of preventing climate change.
Other fiscal measures and tax incentives to stimulate the levering of private finance into the renewables industry could be usefully considered by the Treasury in helping us to meet our targets. The non-fossil fuel obligation has been successful in reducing costs of renewables, but many non-governmental organisations and the International Energy Agency have recommended that other measures to develop the green electricity market—both to complement the NFFO and to encourage the commercial take-up of energy generated by renewable sources—should be taken.
Some electricity companies offer a green tariff for those willing to pay extra for renewable energy. That may attract some subscribers, but I fear that they will be in a minority. It will be a significant time before sufficient funds are generated for substantial investment in renewables.
Countries such as the Netherlands have successfully levered private finance into renewable energy through simple tax incentives. Since the introduction of a green tax break in 1995, almost £200 million of private finance has been invested in funds established by Dutch banks for environmental projects. The majority of investment has been in renewables, although there have also been small investments in organic farming, eco-offices and the development of natural habitats and country estates. Similar tax breaks have been advocated by the New Economics Foundation and others to stimulate investment in initiatives, including environmental initiatives, to tackle social and financial exclusion. Other Treasury Ministers are considering such proposals.
The interest or dividends on the green funds are exempt from income tax, allowing the bank to pass on favourable terms to the investor and the project being financed. The initiative has been greeted with considerable enthusiasm by the Dutch public and financial institutions. The certificates of the first green interest fund issued by Rabo-Robeco bank to the value of £150 million were sold out in nine days. The ABN-AMRO fund for a £25 million wind farm was similarly popular.


The green funds have succeeded by harnessing the public's desire to invest their savings in an environmentally sound and ethical way while still receiving an acceptable return. They have also provided much-needed capital for renewable energy projects, which could not have been secured through public expenditure or other means. The green funds are carefully regulated through the Dutch central bank. Proposals by project developers are assessed by the Ministry of Housing and Environment. The initiative has already resulted in 25 new energy projects, mostly on wind energy.
There is a fund for investing in wind power in Britain, established by the Triodos bank, but it is on a small scale compared with the Netherlands and does not have the advantages of the Netherlands tax system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry has welcomed the fund as an example of extending community involvement in the planning and ownership of green energy schemes.
We must carry the public with us if we are to achieve our renewables target. The Dutch system has so far favoured large-scale projects, but attention must be given to promoting renewable energy at community level. Tax incentives for communities that want to invest in renewable technology should be actively promoted. It has been demonstrated in other countries that, where communities have a stake in renewable facilities—such as through a co-operatively owned structure—and can see the financial benefits, they are more positive about the development of renewables. Tax incentives for community-based renewable projects would help to stimulate interest in, and take-up of, renewable energy, particularly if any surplus electricity could be taken by the grid at a reasonable price.
A tax incentive scheme could be a useful complementary measure to the NFFO. It would help us to meet our renewables and carbon dioxide targets and ensure that Britain was at the forefront of the development of the renewables sector. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give careful consideration to such a scheme.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing the debate. I should like to concentrate on why it is so important.
I recently became a trustee of an international body that is concerned with the crisis in the world's fisheries. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that 60 per cent. of the world's fisheries require urgent management, and that 30 to 40 per cent. of them are about to be exhausted. It is essential that Governments take a lead and mean what they say. This should not be an issue of party politics. The previous Government passed on a good record on the environment to the new Government. However, more needs to be done. The link between the environment and taxation is crucial. I agree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) that a serious tax reform must consider the role of the environment.
The Deputy Prime Minister recently returned from the conference on climate change in Buenos Aires. He went out with a great deal to say and high hopes, but most of us know that he returned with very little agreed. One of the major agreements was that 146 unresolved items would be deferred to a future climate change meeting.
The world must face up to the crisis. Countries such as the United Kingdom must take a lead and the Government must take action. The Government have shown a spirit of wanting to get on with addressing the problems of the environment. There has been a great deal of consultation. Indeed, as Charles Secrett of Friends of the Earth recently said, the Government's motto is fast becoming "Carry on Consulting". Lord Marshall's recent report on business energy use and the proposal for an energy tax is a start, but, for all the criticisms that might be levelled against the report, the Chancellor's response was that we must have more consultation.
Some of the problems require not just consultation, but action. The Marine Stewardship Council came into play because Unilever and the World Wide Fund for Nature put up about £1 million for urgent research on the state of the world's fisheries. That was not done with whole-hearted benevolence, but there was philanthropy involved. Unilever owns Bird's Eye. It realised that, in 10 years, there will be no more cod for its fish fingers. It is a long time since an 18th-century cabin boy could report that he was unable to get the boat out from the shore into the Baltic sea for three days because of the shoals of fish. Today, he would be lucky to find a fish in the Baltic.
The MSC wants to launch two major projects: one on the state of Alaska salmon and the second on South African hake. Those fisheries will soon be exhausted, but it is difficult for such bodies to find the funding that they need. There are suggestions of hypothecated taxation or the creation of an independent resource such as an environmental investment bank from which bodies such as the MSC or the Forest Stewardship Council could draw. Action is essential.
The Government's pre-Budget report has been criticised by many green bodies, including Friends of the Earth, because it fails to make core links between the environment and taxation. One of the projects mentioned in the pre-Budget report involves changes to vehicle excise duty. We have heard that there is to be a cut of £50 for cars with low emissions—a total incentive from the Treasury of £1.7 billion or £1.8 billion. However, we can guess that the Government will increase vehicle excise duty on other cars, which will net the Exchequer the same amount of money.
What will happen to that money? Will it be specifically linked to innovation in new technologies to protect the environment? Will it be made available to bodies such as the Marine Stewardship Council, which could use it to get on with the crucial work of certification, which has been agreed around the world? It has a set of principles that the whole world will sign up to, including the industries and the retailers involved.
The problem is that we cannot get the money to progress to the next stage. This is an opportunity for the Government. The environment needs to be at the heart of the economy, because we are talking about a common inheritance, as John Stuart Mill recognised. It should be at the heart of a civilised society to recognise its duty to husband the environment.
If the Government and the Chancellor are serious about the environment, they should use the change in vehicle excise duty as a way of helping the environment rather than a way of raising taxes. I am glad to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his place, because his


presence is a recognition of the importance of the debate. Will he consider ensuring that the money is not used simply as a way of raising taxes for general revenue purposes, but will be hypothecated in some form, and find its way into environmental concerns, to help bodies such as the Marine Stewardship Council and the Forestry Stewardship Council?
The tax changes should not simply penalise people who drive cars, they should change behaviour. That is at the heart of the issue. The problem is that changes to vehicle excise duty will probably hit people in rural communities hard, while people in urban communities go on driving their cars, and congestion, emissions and pollution continue. The crucial challenge on the environment and taxation is to find a meaningful way in which to encourage people, industry and businesses to change their behaviour. That is at the heart of the debate, and a civilised society must think about it.
Sustainable development is not a slogan, but a crucial task for the Government to take on. I urge the Chief Secretary to tell the House that sustainable development is not mere rhetoric but will be translated into policy, and that the Treasury will firmly underline that fact.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) has chosen well in selecting this important subject for debate, but she has also chosen a minefield for the Government. Several of the mines have already been trodden on by Labour Members, so we look forward to the response to the debate by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) in saying that sustainable development should be a core aim in any civilised society. The Conservatives have always believed that tax measures have an important part to play in delivering environmental aims. For instance, we used tax measures to achieve the successful switch from leaded to unleaded petrol.
Another example that has already been mentioned is the landfill tax, which we introduced, and which was designed to deter and tax the dumping of waste in landfill sites. Crucially, we used the revenue—nearly half a billion pounds a year—to cut employers' national insurance contributions by an equivalent annual sum. By taxing pollution, we cut the taxes on employment.
We can contrast that with what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. He has announced a 43 per cent. increase in the standard rate of landfill tax, but the money will not be recycled into industry or used to reduce the costs of employment. Instead, it will simply be bagged by the Treasury for general expenditure. Taxation comes first, and the environment a poor second. It is therefore not surprising that, in March, the director of Friends of the Earth, Mr. Secrett, said:
Last week's Budget was unforgivable. At a stroke, Gordon Brown broke the Government's manifesto promise to put 'the environment at the heart of policymaking'.
We shall undoubtedly hear several ideas from the Government about aggregate taxation, taxing water pollution and so on—but those ideas were first announced in July 1997. Since then, they have put up taxes 17 times and revolutionised the British constitution, but they still have not introduced any of those environmental ideas.
Rather than trying to gaze into a crystal ball, we are now entitled to examine the Government's record, and we see that little has been done for the environment, while great damage has been done to industry and commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) made a good point about fuel taxation. The Library has calculated that the additional fuel escalator and future tax increases in future Budgets will add £9 billion to the costs of transport and motoring during this Parliament. That will not do anything for the environment; it will simply raise revenue.
The Government have a problem with carbon dioxide reduction, because they are stopping the development of any more gas-burning power stations, and nuclear power will start to be phased out soon, as the older Magnox reactors are decommissioned. However, imposing a burden on the motorist as a substitute will not do the trick. Indeed, the Budget documents make it clear that, by 2010, reductions due to the fuel duty increases will amount to only 1.7 million tonnes of carbon a year, compared with an annual emission of 206 million tonnes. After 12 years of fuel tax increases, the benefit will be an 0.8 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions at best. That is a ludicrously expensive way of achieving not very much. A fraction of that money used in other ways to reduce carbon emissions or to control pollution would bring a far greater return.
The Government are not only hitting the motorist, in rural areas and elsewhere, but damaging the haulage industry—a subject on which the House had a good debate last week. The whole of manufacturing industry is being hit, and productivity undermined, by huge and continuing cost increases. The Government lecture manufacturing industry about productivity. That is their new excuse for economic problems—lazy workers not doing enough at plant level. Yet, at the same time, they are imposing wave upon wave of extra regulations and tax increases on the firms in which people work.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have only a few minutes and I must complete the points that I want to make, most of which are in response to what has been said in the debate.
Despite their declared belief in tax harmonisation in Europe, the Government have made diesel fuel the most expensive in Europe—if that is untrue, 1 hope that the Minister will correct me now. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury sits on a committee dealing with unfair tax competition in the European Union, which means increasing United Kingdom taxation where it is below continental levels. Yet, although the Government have unquestioned discretion on fuel taxation, successive Budgets have widened the gap between our fuel taxes and those on the continent.
That is not harmonisation but the economics of the madhouse. The Government are making a bad situation worse. French lorry drivers come over here with full tanks to take freight round the United Kingdom, while British lorries fill up on the continent. We are exporting not only jobs but revenue.
Smuggling in Northern Ireland leads to a loss of about £100 million in revenue every year, because of the tax differentials across the border. When I asked the Treasury


about that, the answer was that it had made no estimate. The Government think that they can estimate carbon reductions in 2010, but they have no idea how much revenue is lost today. Those are the finances of the madhouse.
Instead of making things better, the Government have announced that things will get worse, because they have signalled that successive Budgets will continue to increase fuel taxes year on year. The damaging differential between our fuel tax rates and those on the continent will widen.
There is another threat, which is mentioned in Lord Marshall's report on a possible energy tax. I am not impressed by the report, which has a curious omission. A Government document on climate change says that air transport is the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions. However, aviation fuel is not taxed at all. The document by Lord Marshall is silent on that sector. I find that surprising, because Lord Marshall is, of course, the chairman of British Airways and has a great deal of knowledge and expertise in that sector. He might have been expected to tell us what should be done to bring those emissions under control, instead of dishing it out to the poor old haulage industry. The report is partial and incomplete, and it will, if we are not careful, impose huge additional costs, making British industry less competitive and driving investment away.
What we see is not the use of taxation to deliver environmental goals—that, perhaps, we could support—but the use of the environment to justify huge tax increases. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is about to reply, and I welcome that. He is still relatively new to his job. Let him use his influence to reverse this high-tax strategy, which has failed. It is doing very little for the environment, it is undermining businesses and it is costing jobs.
In this area at least, can the Government make a start on bringing their rhetoric into line with their performance—or, perhaps, more accurately, start to bring what they do in practice into line with their pre-election rhetoric?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government welcome today's debate on the environmental effects of taxation. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing this debate. I was interested to hear about the Peterborough energy audit and the valuable role played by Perkins Engines in that initiative. My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner in Peterborough and elsewhere on environmental matters.
I also welcome the several members of the Environmental Audit Committee who are in the Chamber. I received a kind invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) to attend one of the Committee's meetings in the near future, and I am due to do so in December. I look forward to that with some trepidation, given the quality of speeches in today's debate.
As we face the century ahead, we need a focused programme of environmental modernisation—a programme that is not simply about environmental protection, but one that can achieve objectives that are

central to the Government's policies. Those policies are clearly set out in the Government's approach to sustainable development, and are based on four broad objectives: first, the maintenance of high and stable levels of growth and employment; secondly, the effective protection of the environment; thirdly, prudent use of natural resources; fourthly, social progress which recognises the needs of everyone.

Mr. David Chaytor: In the context of the Government' s commitment to sustainable development, will my right hon. Friend agree to look again at the code for fiscal stability? Is he aware that, in the recent version of the code which came out with the pre-Budget report, there is a single reference to the word "environment"—and that is the economic environment? Does he agree that it is worth looking at the five criteria used in the code and perhaps including a sixth—sustainability? Would that not be a way of effectively locking in fiscal policy with the Government's commitment to putting the environment at the heart of government?

Mr. Byers: There are a number of ways in which we can address those environmental concerns. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, early next year, the Government will publish our strategy on sustainable development. That will outline our aims, as well as measures already in place, and will highlight what further action might be undertaken to achieve our objectives. Those objectives will make it clear that we believe that economic development must take place in a sustainable way to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, both now and for future generations.
We recognise that what matters is not just the quality but the level of growth. The debate has shown that the tax system clearly has an important role in underpinning sustainable development. Our strategic approach was outlined in our statement of intent on environmental taxation, published at the time of the Budget in July 1997. How and what the Government tax sends clear signals about which economic activities we believe should be encouraged or discouraged. Just as work should be encouraged through the tax system, environmental pollution should be discouraged.
I listened with interest to several hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Lough0ton)—who mentioned the need to establish a green tax commission, something that was proposed by the Environmental Audit Committee in its response to the pre-Budget report. A number of European countries have such a commission, but the experience is variable—it works well in some countries, and not so well in others. We are keeping under review the possibility of establishing such a commission. We do not want duplication. There are many organisations doing valuable work in this area, and we shall need to look carefully to see whether a green tax commission can play a valuable role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) referred to the harmonisation of VAT on the renovation of empty properties. We keep all tax matters under review—that is the nature of any Government. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide whether any


changes will be made in that direction. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look with interest at my hon. Friend's comments.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) raised the two main issues, in my view. First, he referred to the difficulty caused by the Government consulting so much. We make no apologies for that. This is one of the areas where we need to take people with us and to explain the direction in which we wish to go. By doing that, we can command broad and popular support for our proposals. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to hypothecation. We judge each case on its merits, and we will look carefully at each proposal. Once again, we have noted with interest the hon. Gentleman's specific proposals this morning.
It would be a mistake to believe that taxation is the only way in which we can address environmental issues. Clearly, a key part can be played by taxes, but they are not always the solution to every environmental problem. Environmental taxation must meet the general test of good taxation. It must be well designed to meet its objectives without undesirable side effects. It must keep deadweight compliance and administrative costs to a minimum, and care must be taken with regard to implications for the competitive position of UK companies in international markets.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was critical of the Government's spending commitments, which he felt did not address sufficiently environmental concerns. I wish to give the House an example of how the spending—£40 billion for schools and hospitals over the next three years, with which the Conservative party disagrees—can be used to address environmental concerns.
The House will know that the Government have started a large-scale programme of capital investment in our schools and –30 million has been allocated for improvements in energy management, including the replacement of heating systems. Decisions have just been taken to allocate to some 891 schools some of the money. It is estimated that they will achieve average savings on fuel costs of 20 per cent., with further savings on maintenance costs. This should, in total, amount to more than £2 million in savings a year which can be ploughed back into the individual schools. It is not merely pupils who will benefit. There will be a reduction of 44,000 tonnes in the level of carbon dioxide emissions due to the programme, which is the equivalent of 23 million average car journeys, or a reduction of 24,700 in the number of cars—a real contribution that can be made.
The Government will consider the issues in the round. We will study taxation and other measures that can be taken to improve our environment. We intend to do that with people—to consult and move forward on an ambitious agenda that will be based, not on dogma but on putting the national interest first. On the basis of those principles, I commend our approach to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We now move on to the debate on the pig and livestock industry.

Pig and Livestock Industry

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject, and I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I start with livestock before moving to the pig sector. I am also grateful for the support that I have received from a number of my colleagues, including some who are unable to be here but who have contacted me on the subject.
The debate is timely, coming only two days after the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of an aid package. Farming is in crisis, and it is the worst depression in the industry since the 1930s. Some farmers are leaving the industry because they cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel, and some are leaving because they have no choice as they are going bankrupt. The majority of farmers are staying in the industry, but getting poorer. Any savings that they have been able to build up through a number of years of hard and long toil have been eaten away and, for some, overdrafts are increasing daily to dangerous levels.
Put simply, the prices paid for animals have decreased dramatically in the past two years. In some cases, farmers are paid less for their animals now than they were 20 years ago. I do not know whether any other industry is facing similar difficulties. Part of the problem is that consumers do not appreciate the fact that that is happening. One farmer told me that 18 months ago he was paid between £1.10 and £1.20 a kilo for his cattle, but now it is between 75p and 80p. For lamb, the price used to be £1.10 to £1.30 and now it is 65p a kilo.
However, consumers visiting the larger supermarkets do not appreciate the fact that such dramatic falls have taken place. Farmers are being bled dry and consumers are being ripped off. Current supermarket prices are a conspiracy to clobber the producer and cheat the shopper. It is about time a new deal was struck for British farmers and consumers, and if our supermarkets are not going to do that job, who will? Lower prices in the shops would at least encourage increased consumption by more people. That is not the answer to all the industry's problems, but one can imagine the anger and frustration of farmers whose incomes have declined dramatically in the past two years when they see others maintaining or even increasing their margins.
The National Farmers Union has predicted that incomes will fall by a further 67 per cent. this year. Clearly, the situation is not tenable. For farmers to be told that aid will help them in the short term is no comfort when the crisis is long term—it has been going on for two years for many farmers. Obviously, banks have become concerned and relationships between farmers and bankers are strained. The banks will not carrying on lending when they see no prospect of a return.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be meeting bankers to discuss the farming crisis, for which I am grateful. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today what his right hon. Friend will say to the bankers when they meet. What fresh hope of an improvement in the plight of farmers can be given to bankers to help them sustain farmers through this crisis?
The majority of my contribution will concentrate on pig farming, but I wanted to put that part of the sector into the context of an industry that is reeling. The £120 million


of aid announced on Monday is better than nothing, but that is as much as I can say about it. Will the Minister ensure that that money gets through to farmers as quickly as possible, because those with overdrafts see their bank managers weekly and will need to put it in the bank as soon as possible?

Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most noticeable features absent from the announcement on Monday was that, whereas £48.3 million is being made available for the beef industry, not one penny is to go to the pig and poultry industries? Does he not think that that is a disgrace?

Mr. Evans: The pig industry has a distinct problem, but the crisis is hitting all sectors of farming. While the Government are targeting certain areas, the pig and poultry industries, which are also reeling from the same sort of problems as the rest of the industry, are getting no support. My hon. Friend is right about that, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the rest of the sector in his reply.
Ben Gill of the NFU stated that the £120 million will
act as a short-term safety net for some farmers teetering on the brink of financial collapse.
Also, interest rates have increased and the extra costs that farmers have incurred as a result more than swallow up the aid package announced on Monday. Frankly, for many farmers the aid package is not only too little but too late. We need a new approach to the industry—one that will give it greater security for the future—and a new attitude on the part of the Government.
The common agricultural policy is a disastrous method of taking money off the taxpayer in large amounts and ensuring that, in some cases, farmers have to live on less than the proposed minimum wage, which is not sustainable. We know that there are inefficiencies within the European Union. Only yesterday, we heard that there have been about £3 billion-worth of inefficiencies/fraud and that the gravy train is speeding out of control. Something needs to be done to deal with the problem, and capital is needed urgently, in particular because the EU is to increase in size and some of the countries that are about to join are enormous producers of agricultural products, which will impact on United Kingdom farming.
Farmers are reeling from lower prices, but they are also swamped by paperwork. There are new rules and regulations and new welfare standards to obey. Costs are being heaped upon them, with Meat Hygiene Service charges the final insult for many. One farmer told me yesterday that he knows of an abattoir owner who has nine employees at the abattoir, plus seven people from the MHS and two vets to inspect what is going on. Clearly that is not sustainable either. All those costs are passed on. When will those escalating costs to farmers and the industry be controlled?

Mr. Keith Simpson: Some Norfolk farmers told me last week that a number of inspectors are recruited from eastern Europe and some do not speak English properly. One inspector is from Hungary. This is not an insult to them as people, but obviously the communications problems need to be solved.

Mr. Evans: There is certainly a communications problem, but it may not be between the Hungarian

inspector and the people with whom he works. The communications breakdown is between the farmers and those working in the industry and the Government. We need some control of costs so that farmers and people in the industry have some security for the future. For instance, will the Minister tell me whether our continental neighbours face similar costs to those heaped on our industry by the Meat Hygiene Service? Do they have the same sort of hygiene service and similar numbers of inspectors and vets in their abattoirs as in the UK? If not, why not?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The veterinary inspection procedures derive from a European Union directive and are exactly the same in other member states. Eastern European and other EU vets are working in our abattoirs because of recruitment problems in the United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that all of them speak English.

Mr. Evans: That is reassuring. As the Minister knows, all EU directives are enforced in this country—everything that we sign up to, we obey—but there is widespread scepticism in the industry about whether other EU countries would know an EU directive if they fell over one. The Minister, with his colleagues, must ensure that no competitive advantage is given to our EU neighbours.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is more than generous in giving way twice. Is he aware that the standards of inspection in many European countries are much lower? In France, for example, only a vet is required to attend, whereas in this country a vet and a meat processor are needed. Moreover, in many European countries, inspection is paid for by the Government, whereas in this country the industry pays 100 per cent. of the costs. That is straightforward evidence from the Meat and Livestock Commission of the difference between European countries and the UK.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that contribution, which demonstrates the disparity between Britain and Europe. If British farmers and the British industry have to meet all the costs when farmers in other European countries do not, our neighbours will have a competitive advantage in the export market, and British farmers will suffer. That must be sorted out as quickly as possible.
The pig industry has been largely ignored in the current crisis. I saw a photograph of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his wellies on a farm in Devon—he was surrounded by pigs. That was a great photo opportunity for him, and no doubt the pig farmers there bent his ear about the problems that the industry faces.
I pay tribute to Greg Smith and Philip Edge, two pig farmers in my constituency, whom I consulted in preparing for this debate. Their plight is typical. We must remember that the crisis is affecting small family businesses—individuals whose families have, in some cases, worked for generations in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, of the £120 million that was announced on Monday, the pig industry will receive nothing.

Mr. Morley: It did not ask for anything.

Mr. Evans: The Minister says that it did not ask for anything, but it is asking for help. Only a few weeks ago,


I attended the Meat Livestock Commission breakfast at which he said: "Of course we know that the pig industry is in deep crisis, but how marvellous it is that it does not get any support." That is like watching a ship going down, not sending any support vessels to help it and, when the ship disappears, saying: "How marvellous. It did not ask for any support." The problem is that it did not receive any support.

Mr. Morley: There are no EU mechanisms on subsidies—as the hon. Gentleman said, the pig industry has never received subsidies. I emphasise that, although the pig industry has asked for a range of measures, which I shall outline, it has never requested direct subsidies.

Mr. Evans: That may be so, but we must recognise that the industry is reeling from the same pressures as the rest of agriculture. It is pointless saying that the sector has not asked for any subsidies; it is asking for help and a range of measures irrespective of subsidies. Farmers in neighbouring countries do not have to face the costs that are being heaped on the British industry.
Pig farmers are deeply concerned about the price that they are receiving for their products. The other day, Farmers' Weekly said:
Despite Brussels' recent decision to raise export subsidies, UK prices have continued to slip and are now less than half the cost of production. The number of casualties is mounting, most notably this week with the bankruptcy of Scotland's biggest pig farmer, Arthur Simmers. But the pain is not being shared equally and supermarkets continue to profit from the crisis. Since the market peaked in June last year, producer prices have slumped by a massive 55 per cent. Retail values over the same period, however, have dropped by just 13 per cent.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is no doubt aware that Norfolk produces more than one tenth of all this country's pigs; it is estimated by local experts that the county has lost £58 million in the past 11 months because of the crisis in the industry. A farmer told me last week that his family business had lost £7,500. We do not want the Minister to give descriptions of the problems; we want answers to the specific questions that I know my hon. Friend will raise.

Mr. Evans: Norfolk is an important area for pig production, but the whole of the United Kingdom is affected. I have received a letter from the Ulster Farmers Union, whose members are also reeling from the crisis. All sectors of agriculture and all parts of the United Kingdom are affected.
The strong pound has had an impact on exports. Because of the difficulties in Asia and Russia, two markets that the EU has traditionally supplied, there have been many lost contracts, which has led to an over-supply. Moreover, many farmers in the UK and elsewhere have been increasing production to try to make up for the lost money, but that depresses prices even further.
Another problem is the welfare rules. We support the ending of stalls and tethers, but we must recognise that that has led to further costs for the industry. One of my farmers told me that he had had to spend £35,000 on new production methods for his pigs, but that sum is probably at the lower end of the range—some farmers will have had

to spend much more than that. Animal welfare policies are being implemented in the United Kingdom well before they are in the rest of the European Union, with which we have to compete.

Mr. John Hayes: The capital investment that my hon. Friend mentions may, on paper, become an asset, but it is hard to do anything with it, as it is not transferable or flexible. It is often said that farmers have a lot of land and capital, but that capital is not very useful in a time of crisis.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The capital investment is not an asset when the pig farmer has had to borrow the money and now has to pay it back, with interest charges, as prices for his product fall. The welfare standards are tremendous, but I wish that they were met elsewhere, so that farmers in other European Union countries did not have a competitive advantage. What message on welfare standards will the Minister give to pig farmers? Will he ensure that pigmeat coming into this country meets the same standards as pigmeat that is produced here?

Mr. Morley: indicated assent.

Mr. Evans: I see the Minister nodding. We are giving our European Union neighbours, such as Holland, Denmark and France, a competitive advantage. It may be four or five years before some of those countries abandon stalls and tethers, in which time they will be able to kick British pigmeat out of the market and dominate it themselves. In that time, our farmers will go out of business, and it is very difficult for those starting up to make any impact.
Let us not give our neighbours a competitive advantage. We must fight for welfare standards throughout the whole of the European Union. If we are too far ahead of the game, we will do the British industry no service.

Mr. Morley: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's serious point about welfare standards, but I do not agree that our competitors who do not have the same standards as ours have a marketing advantage. The British Retail Consortium's recent announcements about the sourcing of fresh pigmeat and bacon, and about extending the schemes to other processed products, show that our quality assurance schemes and buying practices give our producers a welfare and a marketing advantage over our competitors, as demonstrated by the fact that some of our continental competitors are voluntarily applying the same standards.

Mr. Evans: It remains to be seen what competitive advantage British pig farmers will gain, as 30 per cent. of all bacon goes to catering concerns, which will continue to go on price: if it is cheaper, they will buy bacon from Denmark, where there are stalls and tethers. A lot of bacon goes under brand names, in any case. The Danish pig industry has done a tremendous marketing job for many years. In my local supermarket last week I could not buy any bacon other than Danish, and I am in a rural area. If the supermarkets have shown the way, I do not put much faith in the support that we will get in the future.
I believe that the Minister is considering banning certain antibiotics, including growth enhancers. If that is done simultaneously throughout the European Union,


there will be no competitive advantage to other countries, but if we do it even before the science says that growth enhancers are wrong, we will heap more costs on British pig farmers. I understand that, for every £1 that will no longer be spent on antibiotics, £6 will have to be spent on feeding the animals. How does the Minister intend to ensure that any ban is science-based and applied equally throughout the European Union?
Pig feed made from meat and bone meal is banned here, but not in the rest of the European Union. What hope can the Minister give the British pig farmers for progress on that?
Consumers should be given as much information as possible. They do not know that farmers are getting less for their product, because prices in the shops are virtually the same as they were two years ago. How can we ensure that consumers have the information to make intelligent decisions about what they buy?
Pig farmers used to get something for the waste from the pig, but now they get nothing: in fact, they have to pay to get all the waste destroyed.
My greatest fear is that, with all the extra costs and higher standards, British pigmeat will be more expensive and supermarkets will simply go for what is cheaper. Housewives will certainly go for the cheaper option, because many of them are on fixed incomes and cannot afford to make ethical or moral choices. What consultations is the Minister holding on support for the British pig industry?
I read in The Daily Telegraph this morning that 1.3 million extra eggs are being sold every day because Delia Smith demonstrated some recipes using eggs. Do British pig farmers have to rely on Delia Smith to concoct a wonderful recipe including British pigmeat to give the industry a boost, or can they rely on the Minister for some support?
We are looking for a level playing field, even though I hate that phrase. We are in a competitive, cut-throat world, and we are heaping extra costs on British pig farmers, giving the rest of Europe a competitive advantage. The industry will be listening when the Minister replies.

Mr. Alan Hurst: There is all-party support for the British pig industry, and I was a little saddened that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) sought party advantage in what is obviously a dire crisis for the whole of agriculture, and especially the pig industry. The idea of intervention, at which he was hinting, is not historically justified. According to my researches, pig fanning has not historically received state support, and I do not believe that pig farmers want subsidy, although I understand that they face particular problems.
Veterinary inspection is required not only for pigs: I recently visited a turkey farm—run by a family firm since the 1920s—where people made the same points to me as the pig farmers made to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. They are most anxious that the charges for continuous veterinary inspection should be on a headage or a weight basis, because the small operator is bound to suffer if there is a time-cost charge. In this time of agricultural crisis, I see some merit in the Government's

at least considering some assistance with the cost of veterinary inspection for those involved in animal husbandry.

Mr. Hayes: One understands that universal subsidies cannot be applied across the board, especially in the arable, pigmeat and poultry sectors, but specific, targeted and focused help for exactly the sort of producers that the hon. Gentleman highlighted—in Essex and Lincolnshire—might have been expected from the statement earlier this week. I hope that the Minister will bring a more helpful proposal to the House.

Mr. Hurst: My judgment was that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was warmly received and that it was generally accepted that he had consulted widely and listened, and had taken almost all the financial steps that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) had urged him to take about two weeks earlier.
Mixed farms used to be much more common than they are today and, perhaps not in Norfolk but in many other areas, people used to move into and out of pig farming according to the state of the market, but that is no longer possible, because pig production has become much more capital-intensive. As far as I can gather, all farmers welcome the improvement in welfare standards, but that has added to capital costs, so people can no longer do pigs one year and chickens the next.
I am a little anxious if the only solution to the pig farming problem is thought to be discussions with our European neighbours about bringing all welfare standards up to the same level, because, if we wait for those negotiations to reach a proper conclusion, there will be few pig farmers left in this country to produce a product that has been so successfully improved over recent years.
Encouraging figures were given in a recent Adjournment debate, showing the progress that the pig farming industry had made over the past few years. A much leaner product has been produced to satisfy popular consumption demand. Until recently, the figures showed that the amount of pigmeat exported from this country had almost doubled.
However, what the industry cannot do—we probably cannot do it either, and it has been skirted around this morning as if it does not matter—is to solve the financial crisis in Russia and the far eastern economies. It is not just our pigmeat producers who cannot export to those countries; our European competitors face the same problem. In a declining world market, everybody will jostle and tussle, almost like pigs in a pen, for what is left in the market. I am not surprised that the Danish and Dutch producers are seeking to enter our markets, just as we would seek to enter theirs.
At present, our people are disadvantaged because of the strength of the pound. I appreciate that there is no easy answer to that. In all my reading of the proceedings in this Chamber going back over many decades, I have not yet found any Government saying that it is their policy to weaken the currency. That is not the answer. We have to accept that there is a problem because our competitors' products are cheaper than ours and because they have not advanced as far as we have in welfare considerations. Many of our producers have implemented those welfare considerations voluntarily.


We need to be a little careful about horror stories about the wickedness of our competitors. We were warned about that during the beef crisis, when German producers sought to do that about our beef. In fact, they frightened their own consumers so much that they ate less beef of any kind, from whatever country.
It is right to aim some criticism at the supermarket monopolies. They have enormous power in the agricultural community. It is right that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have entered into discussions with the supermarket chains, or the organisation that represents them, to secure certain assurances for pigmeat producers in particular and for the producers of more general meat products.
The assurance which already exists is that the product will be labelled according to the country of rearing and birth rather than the country of packaging. It has always seemed absurd to state where something is packaged. There is no earthly point in my being told that Somerset cider is bottled in London. I want to know that it comes from Somerset. The same would apply to any other regional product. I want to know that I am buying British bacon if that is what I choose. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made considerable advances, bearing in mind the power of the supermarket chains in retail sales.
I believe that things have gone further. As was announced earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, supermarket chains are saying that, from I January, they will offer for sale only pork or bacon products which are produced to the same level of welfare standards as ours. I have a degree of faith in British consumers and I believe that, once that proposition becomes more widely known, they will seek to purchase our products rather than those which are deemed to have been produced in a less humane manner.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—that, while the supermarket chains are in their benevolent phase, one may be able to make a judgment about what type of bacon or pork to buy, but it is different when one dines in a restaurant. I suppose one could ask whether the bacon on the plate is British. I am sure that the waiter would say, "Certainly sir, of course it is British. We serve nothing else." Of course the restaurant is unlikely to expect anyone to be particularly seeking Dutch or some other sort of bacon. There is a problem, and there is no instant solution.
I am encouraged by the representations that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made to Government Departments to encourage them to consider the purchase of British meat products. Opposition Members sometimes seem to slide back in time and act like socialists of the old school when they ask why it is not possible to demand that the armed forces serve only British bacon. They seem to have forgotten that we now operate in a world of competitive tendering and best value, and that people have no choice but to go for the cheapest as long as it is of equal standard.
We would say that that can be overcome by the proposition that our meat products are of a superior standard and that, even if they are fractionally more expensive, one can still make a choice according to best

value. It is not a question of ministerial edict. We cannot say, "You must buy British products." We would have the whole system of European law come down upon us if we sought to restrict our Government Departments to using only our products.
I am encouraged by the steps that the Government have taken so far in the areas where they have the power so to do. I hope that they will consider providing, perhaps at some public expense, the ability to store pigmeat products so as to take them out of the market. I hope that they will also consider some assistance with veterinary charges.

Mr. David Ruffley: I speak as a Member of Parliament in the county of Suffolk. That county relies to some extent on the pig industry for agricultural production.
The crisis in the livestock industry is manifest. The depression facing my county is the worst it has seen since the 1930s. There has been a great deal of constructive dialogue with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I pay particular tribute to those bodies that have advised me and other local Members of Parliament—the National Farmers Union branches in Bury St. Edmunds, Stowmarket, Eye and Stanton, and the British pig industry support group, eastern region, which has been trying to find a way to influence the Government and to brief hon. Members in an effective way.
The small amount of progress that has been made on behalf of the pig industry has, to a large extent, been the result of initiatives taken by bodies outside Government. Although the Ministry has been making warm noises and saying that it wants to listen and consult, in reality the little progress that has been achieved has been the result of direct action by Members of Parliament who have been lobbying the supermarket chains on behalf of the National Farmers Union and other industry groups to try to get some practical measures under way.
One example of those practical measures is the "buy British" campaign. Many hon. Members, including myself, have written to all the supermarkets in their constituencies. I have written to the chairmen and chief executives of all the supermarket chains in my constituency asking them to go out of their way to publicise the benefits of British pigmeat and to organise the labelling on their own-brand products to identify pigmeat as being British reared and produced, not just British packaged.
In a debate in the House in July, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), there was a suggestion that Ministers should do what they could to ensure that, as far as possible, the source of pigmeat used by local authorities for school meals and by the armed forces should be the United Kingdom. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that we cannot have a socialist-style diktat to ensure that local authorities and the armed forces' procurers demand British pigmeat. That cannot be achieved overnight.
Nevertheless, under the terms of best value, Ministers should be able, on welfare grounds alone, to flag up the fact that we produce the highest standard of pigmeat. On quality, we are better than foreign pigmeat producers, and price does not come into it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a detailed explanation of how local education authorities and the armed forces are trying to use British-produced pigmeat.


The aid package announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not do anything for the pig industry, and my local NFU representatives will be intrigued to hear claims that there has been no demand for state help or some public spending assistance for the pig industry. However, I wish to discuss not what the Government have not done, but what they can do in the future and I have two specific issues to raise.
My first concern is the level at which supermarkets set retail prices for pigmeat. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) produced figures that I believe understate the fall in United Kingdom producer prices in the pig industry. He mentioned 55 per cent., and that figure was true in August this year. The Library advises me that 55 per cent. may be the fall in producer prices, but the average fall in retail prices over the same time is 13 per cent. That differential is troubling to pig producers in my county. It is bad enough that producer prices have fallen through the floor, but it is even more galling to discover that the supermarkets' policy is not encouraging British consumers to buy British-produced pigmeat.
What can the Government do about that problem? They may say, "We do not live in a socialist dictatorship: it is a matter for the private sector to determine retail price levels." That is largely true, but Ministers could hold serious discussions with the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the policy under which the price of pigmeat seems to be stuck at a high level when producer prices are so much lower. The British consumer is suffering and so is the British pig producer. My constituents and those who write to me regularly on the subject want to know what Ministers have said to the OFT, and what steps they are taking within the regulatory regime to ensure that falls in producer prices are sensibly passed on to the British consumer.
My second question needs a direct response from the Minister. Our regime for pig welfare is, without doubt, the best in Europe, and probably the best in the world. It was initiated by the previous Government and has been—in my view, sensibly—continued by the Ministry. However, producers in the pig industry are disturbed when they face a regime that prosecutes them for using meat and bonemeal in their pig units or for using sow stalls and tethering, but supermarkets can import pigmeat reared and produced using those production techniques.
If it is illegal for British meat produced in such a manner to be placed on supermarket counters, how can it be legal, just, right and fair for those same supermarkets to sell imported meat produced by the very techniques that are banned in this country? What legal advice has the Ministry received on that point? British pig producers do not have a level playing field, but worse still, potentially dangerous meat products are allowed on our shelves. If meat and bonemeal cause problems when fed to pigs in this country, they must also cause problems in imports from Holland and elsewhere on the continent. I hope that the Minister will answer that question in legal terms, and tell us what advice he has received.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley raised a question about the official veterinary inspection service. The number of hours that are imposed on small producers and the cost per hour are increasing. I am indebted to a long briefing by Mr. Arthur Diaper, who is a poultry producer in Horley in my constituency. He gives a toe-curling analysis of the additional costs that he, as a small family business man, faces from the increased

inspection charges. He makes a point about inspection levels on the continent, to which I would like a response from the Minister.
The Minister of State wrote to me and said that, if the rules were not observed in, for example, Greece, the Commission could take infraction proceedings. That is the legal position, but, to give confidence to poultry producers such as Mr. Diaper, will the Minister confirm that he will ask the Commission to give examples of infraction proceedings that it has brought against producers outside the United Kingdom, but within the European Union, for breaches of inspection rules and regulations relating to the official veterinary service?
We are told that the issue is a matter for the Commission, but the Minister needs to give confidence to producers in this country that they operate under the same rules and regulations as other parts of the European Union. Nothing less than an assurance that the Minister will talk to the Commission will do for producers in my constituency.
The Minister does his best to be an amiable and genial defender of Government policy, and he and his colleagues do their best to listen. They are good at warm words and the soft, fluffy-edged skills that are so characteristic of the new Labour party. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It makes for good soundbites, and it looks good.
The Minister has been good enough to notify me that he will address a meeting in Bury St. Edmunds next week. That will be the first sighting in my constituency of any shadow Minister or Minister of any description from the Labour party during the three years in which I have been there. It is such a first that we all wonder why he is turning up. If he wants to listen to us, that is fine, but the people who attend the meeting will not want to hear just warm words. They want to know what practical and effective steps the Government will take to help farming in general and livestock in particular.
I should like specific answers to the three specific points that I have raised today, and my constituents would like those answers, too. If the Minister does not reply today, he will certainly be asked for answers when he visits my constituency.

Mr. David Drew: I welcome the opportunity to discuss farming, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on gaining a debate on both the pig industry and the wider livestock situation. We went along the same path some weeks ago when the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised a related issue.
I want to respond to several of the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, and to make some general points of my own. While he and I can agree that there is a crisis, the House has heard some rewriting of the history of how we got into it, and of how the Government are trying to deal with it. I did not hear the letters BSE emanate from the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but we cannot forget that many of the problems facing British agriculture stem from that crisis. I was intrigued to hear the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) say how unfair was the ban on feeding meat and bonemeal to pigs. I challenge them to say whether they suggest that we should end that ban.

Mr. Ruffley: Our speeches made it clear that we welcomed the ban because it contributes to our high


welfare standards. The question is whether the same high standards are being observed on the continent, and the answer is that they are not.

Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I share his wish that the same standards should apply. There is clearly a need to pressure retailers, caterers and meat processors, who have not been mentioned so far, into adhering to the same standards.
We have heard a lot about welfare standards. Like other hon. Members, I have spoken to the Meat and Livestock Commission and it would seem, from the commission's consumer profiling, that welfare standards are not foremost in consumption decisions made by individual customers. Interestingly, however, when irradiated food was offered to customers, almost all of them chose not to buy it, despite the inducement of lower prices. There is a job to be done in ensuring that consumers understand the need for higher welfare standards, as well as higher quality and environmental standards. The House, and the trade itself, must ensure that we get that message across to the consumer.
My main point is that we must understand that the pig industry operates in a dysfunctional market. When it comes to the over-supply of pigmeat, one problem not raised so far is that the market is not only open—that has been said—but cyclical, a fact that raises its own difficulties. Many farmers chose to begin production of pigmeat at the very time when excess supply problems were likely, and that has made those problems worse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) has made clear, the loss of markets because of both declining demand and excess supply, particularly in Russia and south-east Asia, makes it little wonder that we have reached the nadir—at least, I hope we have—of prices and over-supply.
A more difficult tie-in is the fact that some market segments within agriculture are controlled, and others are not. People can see that their livelihoods may be affected by those controls, and that is particularly so for the beef and lamb sectors. There is a temptation to move to the freer market areas, and that has happened to a limited extent in my constituency. My farmers are principally dairy farmers, but there is some beef and sheep production. Some farmers decided 18 months or so ago to move into pigmeat production, and they have caught a cold. They have suffered a difficult decline because agriculture is not—to use a favourite phrase—a level playing field. The field is not even level within agriculture itself, and we cannot underestimate the damage that results from that.
No one doubts that we are discussing changes to our whole production process. Even the laggards in the rest of the European Union, let alone those in the rest of the world, understand that we are moving away from supply constraints towards lower prices with direct support. That support may come through mechanisms for environmental support, or it may be direct economic support. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a package of support earlier this week, and some of us welcomed it greatly. We shall soon see its overall impact on agriculture.
In the meantime, however, we must manage the crisis that none of us would deny. We must realise that difficult decisions are needed if we are to move to freer markets

in the medium term, and if we are to recognise more global markets in the long term. As I learn more about farming, I am interested to find that some pig producers in the south-west are already global operators. I have met people who are already farming in Brazil and in eastern Europe. That is not uncommon. To suggest that the problems are purely domestic is to underestimate greatly the significant changes that have happened. That does not detract from the fact that there is an excess of supply, and that that is driving down prices.
Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers Union, has produced an interesting document for the European Policy Forum. It includes a graph showing that the retail price index for all items has risen since 1987 from a base of 100 to 160. The RPI for food only has risen from 100 to about 138, but farmgate prices have dropped off dramatically since about 1996. The graph ends with 1997, and I cannot pretend that the situation has not got a lot worse since then. It is clear, however, that farmgate prices, which had previously risen far less steeply than had the comparable sectors, have declined dramatically since early 1996.
There are serious problems, and we must deal with them. I agree with the solutions suggested by the NFU, and by Ben Gill in particular. We must seek value added at the root of the food chain, rather than having supermarkets deciding their margins, then passing them down the food chain as reverse benefits. That simply is not acceptable. At the same time, we need to recognise that farmers can collaborate more, which may allow them at least to hold down the increases in costs, if not to seek a reduction in costs through economies of scale.
I return to the point that we are moving towards more globally driven markets in all agricultural products, but we must provide opportunities for people to produce on a localised level and seek niche markets.
The pig and livestock sector will recover. It must proceed along a rocky path at the moment, but I have every faith that fanners will find a way to rebuild the sector and ensure a much healthier future.

12 noon

Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for initiating this important debate. We shall listen to the Minister with great interest.
We are talking not about a complaint, but about a crisis across all agricultural sectors, which is felt nowhere more acutely than in pig farming. Farmers in my constituency are being driven to ruin. I fear that they will be driven to worse than ruin. There was recently a tragic case of a farmer's suicide in the neighbouring constituency of Macclesfield. We have to turn the situation around.
I shall read briefly from a letter that a pig farmer in my constituency wrote to me. He said:
There are no words to describe the financial plight of the pig industry at the moment. It really is criminal what the supermarkets are doing and the government are not doing. The supermarkets are claiming all the rewards from the general public through the drastic price increases they add onto the farmers prices. I am at this time getting half my break even price for my pigs, that is about £30.00 a pig loss and I sell 110 pigs a week.
That man has spent £50,000 updating his facilities. He has no way of getting a return on that investment. He is facing ruin, and he sees no future for himself or other pig farmers in the constituency.


I wonder what we can do to help. Of course, we look to the Government for action to alleviate the crisis, but we can use the bully pulpits of our speeches, our meetings with constituents and the little articles that we write in our local weekly papers and urge people to buy British. They are patriotic, and they know that we produce the best.
The same applies to our poultry industry, which in my constituency is suffering greatly and is about to suffer even more acutely from the demand that there be full-time vets on site. Family businesses cannot survive in that way.
My father was a fanner and a country writer of some distinction. He farmed through the recession in the early 1930s. In the second world war, he wrote urging soldiers to go back, when the war was over, to life on the farm and agriculture, because then it offered the prospect of a decent living. Now it does not, and I suspect that, if he were alive today, under no circumstances would he make such a recommendation. There is not a living to be made.
The Government must turn the situation around, and I am sure that we, as Members of Parliament, can help. It is the responsibility of us all to make sure that the pig industry survives and that our farms are not a wasteland.

Mr. John Hayes: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who, with typical charm and acumen, obtained this debate and started it so well. It is a great pleasure to speak in a debate to which the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) have contributed. They always make thoughtful speeches in our deliberations on agriculture, as do my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell).
I want to make several points and a plea. First, the greater specialisation that is the consequence of an appropriate drive for quality and the greater focus and expertise that will be produced will make the livestock industry more vulnerable. The hon. Member for Braintree said that, in days of old, people would go into and out of sectors: for example, they would go into pigs or out of poultry. That was also the case in the arable sector. It is becoming less and less true. That specialisation will create an inevitable inflexibility when a particular sector is hard hit, and it must be taken into account in any future regime that we establish.
Secondly, there is an interdependence born of fellowship in agriculture, but there is also a more commercial interdependence. The price of and demand for grain is critical to the livestock producer and the effect on morale of a blow to one part of the industry is felt widely. There is far greater interdependence than is recognised and acknowledged.
Thirdly, demands for quality will also result in a need for greater capital investment. That was mentioned earlier in relation to pigs, but, not wishing to tether us to pigs, I am trying to speak a little more widely. That capital investment will mean that farmers find that they cannot move in and out of products and will exacerbate the trend that I mentioned in my first point. Farmers will also have to borrow more to invest. It is often said that farmers have had good times and now they have bad times, and that they should have spread their money across the years. We all know that life does not work like that, but the claim is particularly untrue in farming, where good years tend to

produce the greatest capital investment and lean years mean that farmers depend on that investment to get them through. Greater capital investment is now necessary, and will certainly be significant in the future.
My fourth point is about the extension of Community regulations on co-operatives. We need more co-operation in the industry, particularly on sharing best practice and on more appropriate and more skilled joint marketing. I wonder if it would be possible to extend the Community regulations and directives on co-operatives to private amalgamations and collaborative organisations. A number of those already exist in the arable sector, as the Minister will know, and in the livestock sector. That is a growing trend.

Mr. Drew: indicated assent.

Mr. Hayes: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. He also mentioned that point. We need to consider how we can most effectively support that trend.
My fifth point is to nail the point about the market. I am a business man and I made my money in business, but we must recognise, as The Times said earlier this week:
Market collapse, followed by an exodus of farmers, could threaten the land's husbandry. The Government and public must acknowledge that preventing this costs money.
The plant of a fanner—the buildings and the land—is our vista, our horizon and our rural idyll. I know that critics will say that that is a suburban misinterpretation of the rural world, but there is little apart from farming that one can do with land. It is not flexible like commercial property, such as offices and factories. Reskilling and the re-use of plant and investment is much harder in agriculture, and we must acknowledge that the Government will always have to intervene to pay, incentivise and reward farmers for that role in land husbandry. Their countryside is our countryside, and we should not be ashamed to say so.
My plea is for the Government to take a strategic view, and to develop a vision for agriculture. What we had earlier this week—it was presented as nothing else—was an emergency aid package. It was accident and emergency treatment, not preventive medicine. It did not reflect a bigger picture or a long-term goal or vision. If we are to talk about restructuring the industry, we must know into what we are restructuring it.
When the Select Committee on Agriculture considered the beef industry, one of our greatest complaints was that there seemed to be an absence of long-term vision. How big will the industry be? How many producers will there be? What will the level of production be? We need to make those judgments now if we are to work to a meaningful and realistic agenda and give farmers the faith that we have a clear sense of direction that can be coherently and consistently communicated to them. At the moment, everything appears to be reactive. I do not say that particularly of this Government—it is not a party political criticism.
We have tended to react, rather than to plan strategically. That is my plea: let us have a strategic division. Let us not be buoyed by events. Let not Europe dictate the terms. This is a matter of national interest. I shall not repeat all the valid points that have been made


about supermarkets, although I could wax lyrical on that topic all day—not that you would let me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is a need for a clearly defined, long-term plan that will be supported by all parties and the industry, and which will revitalise agriculture and give it a place in the next millennium.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Because of the short time available to me, I cannot deal in detail with the contributions that we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—who introduced the debate and spoke with great passion and concern as he outlined the problems—for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). We also heard contributions that we on these Benches have learnt to enjoy from the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Tatton (Mr. Bell). It is notable that the only contribution from the Liberals is the fact that one of their spokesmen has just walked into the Chamber.

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose——

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to walk into the Chamber at the last moment and take up the time of those who have been present throughout the debate. [Interruption.] I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman should sit down and listen.
The debate takes place against the background of steps that the Government have taken, which I value. In large measure—I do not say this in a partisan sense—those are points that we put to the Government, as did farmers. I welcome the action that has been taken in respect of agrimonetary compensation, HLCA payments and the calf processing scheme. All that is right and proper, and I commend the Government for it.
There has been comment this morning about the amount of money in the Government's package. I do not dismiss £120 million as a derisory sum; it is not. However, the crisis involves far more than money. That contribution represents less than 5 per cent. of the decline in farm incomes over the past three years. If it were simply a matter of money, the position would be entirely different. As we have said repeatedly, what we need from the Government is not so much an effort of money as an effort of will. They must recognise that there is a problem of unprecedented proportions, and be prepared not only to take fiscal measures, but to listen to what people want and to act on it.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made much play in his recent statement about the arrangement that he had reached with the British Retail Consortium. That has been mentioned in the debate by other hon. Members, and I make no apology for returning to it. Although I particularly enjoy the contributions of the hon. Member for Braintree, he is simply wrong when he sums up the deal—if it amounts to that—that has been reached as ensuring that supermarkets will not sell products that have not been produced to the same standards as ours.
It is instructive to study the short and unhappy genealogy of the deal. In the House on 4 November, the Minister pulled a rabbit out of a hat, if I may mix metaphors. Referring to the British Retail Consortium and major retailers, he said:
They have assured me also that, from I January 1999, all pigmeat sold in their outlets will be from animals raised to high welfare standards, with no stalls and tethers and no meat and bonemeal feedstuffs."—[Official Report, 4 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 952.]
The British Retail Consortium promptly decided to reinterpret what it had agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. On 12 November he was forced to say:
The British Retail Consortium assures me that its agreement regarding pigmeat sold in its outlets—being stall and tether-free and meat and bonemeal-free—applies to not only fresh pork but processed products, such as bacon, and is being extended to cover ham, sausages and even pork pies."—[Official Report, 12 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 466.]
Great joy and felicitation and the issuing of much bunting, perhaps, but still the British Retail Consortium was concerned about that gloss being put on its deliberations.
On 16 November, the Minister stated:
The industry's intention was that that covers not only fresh meats but processed meats, including bacon and products such as pork pies. Supermarkets were willing to take responsibility only for those processed products over which they had direct control—in other words, their own brands.—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 632.]
In that form, the assurance is not worth the paper that it is written on. With their buying power, supermarkets can decide what they will and will not put on their shelves. They have the combined might to tell suppliers that they do not want products that do not meet the standards that apply in this country. The existing assurance is worse than meaningless, although I accept that at the time the right hon. Gentleman must have thought it was an assurance worth having. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what steps the Government intend to take to make sure that it amounts to something.
Steps can be taken now. They require an effort of will from the Minister and his colleagues to stand up for this country's interests in Europe. It has been suggested to me by the National Farmers Union, to which I am grateful for these points, that various steps could be taken with regard to the pig industry. The NFU tells me that it has given the Government evidence that state aid is being given by other countries in the EU, specifically France, to help their domestic pig industry.
We know what will happen. The matter will be investigated, and, in due course, the farmers will be told to give the money back. That is how it is done over there, but it is not sufficient. Farmers are entitled to ask the Government to find out what is going on in the EU and to put their foot down. That requires an effort of will.
Fiscal measures could be taken in the Budget, but I do not have time to go into detail. In Europe, the Government should fight to ensure that export credit guarantees are given so that we can compete on equal terms with the United States. We need an early food package for Russia, coupled with a higher rate of EU export refunds for such commercial transactions as can take place.
It is clear that, at present, there is a surplus in Europe. The Government should vigorously initiate discussions with our EU partners about the steps that will be taken to remove the surplus.


With reference to livestock, we have heard what could be done through meat inspection charges in the industry. Time does not permit me to elaborate. We know what could be done to meet the cost of enforcing specified risk material. We know what could be done in terms of the date-based export scheme. Other measures are needed to promote flexibility and an early retirement scheme for farmers.
It is not good enough to claim that nothing more can be done. I have great regard for the Parliamentary Secretary, but it is not good enough for him to bleat, as he did in an intervention, "There is not much that we can do—it is all down to Europe." It is not.

Mr. Morley: I did not say that.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will want to check Hansard. I made a careful note of what he said. This is not the first time that we have heard the Government say, "We would like to help, but we cannot help because of Europe." We want a commitment from our Government to stand up and fight for this country's interests in Europe. It is no good the Government saying that they represent a bridge into Europe, if their idea of a bridge is simply to lie down so that other people can walk over them.
I want a commitment from the Government to get the right deal for British farmers in Europe, in the same way as the Spaniards seek the best deal in the interests of their fishermen.
I recognise that the Government are taking measures, and that part of the problem is the cyclical nature of the farming industry—there are good years and bad years. However, one overriding issue distinguishes this crisis in agriculture from any other: the Government's mismanagement of the economy. The pig, livestock and poultry sectors are all feeling the effects of a pound that is so strong not as a result of deliberate Government action, but as a result of deliberate Government mismanagement of the economy.
That is why the Government are ultimately responsible for the depth of the crisis. That is why it is fair for the farming industry and Conservative Members to point out that the unique strength of this crisis is the fault of those who inhabit Downing street. I would like to think that, as a result of this debate, the Minister might comprehend the scale of the problem and what Government economic mismanagement is doing to our agriculture. However, I suspect that, instead of comprehension and empathy, there will be a yawning void.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regret that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has tried to make a partisan point in what has been a good debate about the real crisis facing agriculture. He suggested that that crisis is a result of the Government's economic mismanagement, when we know very well that much of the pressure on agriculture is due to the collapse of traditional markets, the strength of our currency—although that has devalued by 10 per cent. in recent months—and to a significant increase in production in certain agricultural sectors. There has been a 16 per cent. increase in pig sector production over the past two

years. Those factors, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out correctly and fairly in his opening remarks, have contributed to the current problems.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on a very good and knowledgeable speech, which outlined the pressures that his farming constituent—particularly those in the pig industry—face. I shall try to answer the various points raised in the debate in the limited time available.
Several hon. Members mentioned the supermarkets. They will know that the Office of Fair Trading is investigating the supermarkets and examining such things as the disparity between the prices of goods on the shelves and the prices paid to producers. That report will be published next year.
The Minister and 1 have met the banks—I understand that there will be further meetings—to discuss the current farming situation and emphasise the need for support. In my discussions—I did not meet all the banks, but certainly some of the major agricultural lending institutions—it was made clear that the banking sector has confidence in agriculture and will support farmers, their customers, during this difficult time.
The banks also made several predictions that have so far proved to be quite accurate. At a meeting earlier this year, the banks predicted that the pound would fall in the fourth quarter of this year and that interest rates would peak and decline, and that has occurred. The hon. Member for Teignbridge claimed that interest rates had risen, but they have fallen recently, and the long-term borrowing rate is currently at a 30-year low. The banks also predicted that farm incomes would fall last year and this year, but they are predicting an upturn in 1999. Several factors bear out that prediction.

Mr. Evans: The long-term borrowing rate is mentioned time and time again. Will the Minister concede that farmers borrow not on the long-term rates but on the commercial rates that are available today and those that have been available for the past two years? That is the problem.

Mr. Morley: I think that some farmers do borrow on long-term rates: it depends on their commercial judgment and the size and nature of their operations. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can rule that out.
Several hon. Members mentioned European Union directives. I emphasise that we comply with those directives in this country, and it is not fair to say that other countries do not do likewise. We have repeatedly told several industry sectors that, if they are aware of disparities within the EU, we will not hesitate to investigate them, raise them with the Commission—the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Raney) made that point—and press for immediate action in cases where other member states are not implementing regulations in the same way as we are. I give the House that absolute guarantee.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Some pig producers have claimed that France, in particular, is subsidising its domestic industry. Will the Minister challenge that practice in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Morley: I was about to come to that. We have already challenged it, together with other member states,


and France is not paying anything towards its pig industry at present as a consequence. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will remain vigilant on that point.
I touched upon the issue of competitive advantage earlier by way of intervention. The House may not be aware that United Kingdom exports of pigmeat to Europe this year increased by 17 per cent. on last year, which was a record year. Some 236,000 tonnes of pigmeat was exported from the United Kingdom to the EU. We have some marketing advantages that we can exploit—indeed, we exported pigmeat to Denmark, which is quite an achievement.
Offal control imposes extra costs, and I would not want to pretend otherwise. However, we all know that that is a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—the worst crisis to hit agriculture in the history of this country. We are determined to eradicate BSE from the United Kingdom and deal with those problems. Unfortunately, that means that we must have offal control.

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Morley: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, but I want to try to answer the points that have been raised in the five minutes remaining.
The review of antibiotics is an EU issue, and it is being approached in that context. Any change in antibiotics will take the form of an EU, and not a unilateral, measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) adopted a very reasonable approach based on significant knowledge of the industry. I welcome his support, and I shall reassure him about storage aids in a moment. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to labelling, supply and flagging up standards in the industry. We certainly intend to address those issues.
Any imports into this country must comply with the law, but we can set higher standards if we choose to do so. We have done that in relation to welfare standards in the pig industry, and I emphasise that that has marketing advantages in terms of meat and bonemeal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) emphasised the importance of consumer choice and marketing. I agree with him absolutely. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that the Government fully recognise the impact of the present difficulties on the agriculture industry. That is why we introduced the recent package, which is in addition to the package introduced

last year and the regular subsidies that I will mention in a moment. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made several sensible points, particularly regarding marketing and co-operation. The Government will consider how to take those matters forward in the near future.
We have announced a package of £120 million for the livestock industry. The sum is additional to the overall subsidy for the agricultural sector, which is the equivalent of £50 for every man, woman and child in this country. That is a significant amount. I emphasise that the pig industry—on which this debate has focused—is unsubsidised and is a very light EU regime. We have held talks with the United Kingdom pig industry and, although it has certainly requested a package of support measures and equal treatment and raised several points that were mentioned in the debate, it has not asked for any subsidy. The industry asked the Government to take action against French and German state aid to their domestic industries. We have acted on both counts, and neither Germany nor France is supplying state aid to its pig industry. We are trying to ensure that all member states abide by the rules.
Time is limited in terms of compiling a package of measures for the pig industry, but a further increase of 30 per cent. in the rate of export refunds on fresh and frozen carcase meat was agreed on 15 October. At yesterday's meeting of the pig management committee in Brussels, the decision was taken to increase the level of export refunds from 40 to 70 ecu per 100 kg for fresh and frozen cuts and carcases that are exported to Russia. That is a generous increase that reflects both the economic problems in Russia and the position of the EU pig market. In respect of the EU pig industry, the total package of storage aids, which apply in our country, is the equivalent of more than £100 million. That is going towards helping the pig industry now.
I make it clear that considerable financial support is being given to the pig industry, and in practical terms we have raised continuously that industry's high standards. The British Retail Consortium statement was welcome; the major supermarkets have made it clear that they will be sourcing only fresh pigmeat and bacon, and sourcing their own-process brands—including sausages, pies and so on—from systems that produce stall-free, meat and bonemeal-free pigmeat; and we will be meeting the branded manufacturers to find out whether we can extend that to a wider range of products to assist the pig industry.
The Government will not hesitate to give the pig industry, the livestock industry and agriculture in general what support they can. We have shown that, both financially and through our commitment to give those industries the backing that they deserve.

Floods (South Wales)

Mr. Huw Edwards: Wales has a reputation for rain, but the rain that fell between 21 and 23 October and during the following week was exceptional. Compared to the horrific and unimaginable effects of Hurricane Mitch in central America, our experience was relatively mild, but what happened may be related to the increasing incidence of severe weather, which is attributed to the climatic change caused by global warming.
The aim of the debate is to reflect the concerns of people who were directly affected in those floods, to consider the role of the public services, and to call on the Welsh Office to review the readiness and capacity to respond to incidents of serious flooding in the context of global climatic change.
On the morning of 23 October, I saw in my constituency the effects of the worst floods that south Wales has experienced since 1979, when 7,500 properties were affected. Some would say that the floods were the worst since 1945. The Environment Agency interim report on the October floods states that 500 homes in Wales were flooded; rainfall generally exceeded 150 mm, or 6 in; and in certain locations, such as Treherbert in the Rhondda valley, up to 9 in of rainfall was recorded.
The worst-affected areas have been Merthyr Vale and Aberfan, where residents reported a "surge of clean water" from the Afon Taff, which flooded 160 properties in a few minutes; Pontypridd was flooded by the Taff and Rhondda rivers; Forth, New Tredegar and Ystrad Mynach were affected; in Llandovery, the Afon Bran flooded 155 properties; in Pencoed, near Bridgend, 61 properties were affected; in Aberdulais, 17 properties were flooded; and in the Vale of Glamorgan, about 30 properties were flooded as a result of the level of the River Thaw, and there was widespread disruption to traffic.

Mr. John Smith: The extent of the damage due to flooding in Vale of Glamorgan as portrayed in the Environment Agency's interim report greatly understates the damage that was caused. It is a miracle that no one was killed in my constituency. One old-age pensioner—Mrs. Jennings of Ham Manor Park—waded almost neck deep in flood water, late on the Saturday night. There was total confusion about who my constituents could turn to, and who is responsible in such situations. Should my hon. Friend call for an inquiry, I would support him.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point on behalf of his constituents. What he says adds force to the argument that there should be an independent inquiry into these floods.
I visited homes that were flooded near Abergavenny.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I would echo the call for an inquiry, because not only south Wales was affected by the floods. Herefordshire and the borders were severely affected; indeed, in Herefordshire, one person died in the flooding. Hon. Members will want to commemorate that, and send their condolences to that farmer's family.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? He mentioned environmental changes. Two physical changes have been cited—certainly in Herefordshire—in respect

of the problems of the recent flooding. One is that Welsh Water allegedly opened the sluice gates from reservoirs to release pressure, which caused a surge. That allegation has been denied by Welsh Water, but it has been constantly repeated, and he will have heard it.
The second change to be cited is that, because of the problems associated with agriculture, there have been changes in farming practice, most notably stopping cattle grazing near river edges, which has led to the planting of potatoes. That has caused an increase in topsoil going into rivers, which is silting them up. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind all hon. Members that this a brief debate. Time is precious.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on behalf of his constituents. The whole House will express its condolences to the family of his constituent who lost his life during the floods. I understand that the issue relating to sluice gates may be mentioned by the Minister in his response.
In respect of the homes that I visited near Abergavenny, there was dispute about whether red warnings were issued in time. I met residents in Usk whose homes had been flooded in Llanbadoc. The homes that I visited had been flooded as a result of the failure of the drainage system to cope with the flooding, not because of the River Usk bursting its banks. Despite warnings that there would be a major incident in Usk, that was prevented as a result of the investment in flood defences introduced since 1979.
At a farm near Glangwryne near my constituency, I saw dozens of sheep that had been drowned. Near Usk, more than 40 cattle were reported to have been swept into a flooded river, but, miraculously, all survived. Farmers have experienced a depressing time in recent years, but these incidents have tested to the limit their commitment to farming. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said, at least one farmer lost his life trying to save livestock.
Following the floods, roads were damaged and rendered impassable; drains were blocked, which caused further flooding; wide areas of farmland and open space were transformed into lakes; on the A4042 at Llanellen, near Abergavenny, the River Usk broke its banks with such rapidity that vehicles were stranded, and some drivers and passengers in lorries and cars were rescued in the dead of night.
I have no doubt that, without the efficient and heroic actions of the police and fire services, there could have been serious tragedies. I pay tribute to the retained fire service crew at Abergavenny fire station, which answered numerous calls for assistance during the night. Many of those retained fire officers would have already done a day's work in their normal place of occupation, and may have had to go to work afterwards as well.
South Wales fire services responded to 320 calls about flooding in Gwent alone, and Gwent police placed considerable resources into a gold command at police headquarters in Cwmbran. I also commend the work of Monmouthshire county council and the Environment Agency in my area, and the many individuals who gave their time to assist their neighbours. In Usk, the town council reported problems in the provision of sandbags,


and properties prone to flooding were not protected. Concern has also been expressed about the provision of water pumps and dehumidifier equipment, and about whose responsibility it is to provide such equipment.
The following weekend, some properties were flooded in Monmouth town as a result of the dangerous rise in the level of the River Wye, but more widespread flooding was prevented by the flood prevention measures to which I have referred. As the Environment Agency has stated, a key outcome of success is the absence of a flooding incident. Such outcomes are, by definition, unmeasurable.
In recent weeks, we have seen the horrifying effects of the hurricane and the flooding in central America. The apparent worsening of weather conditions has raised many questions about the impact of climate change caused by global warming. The latest findings from the United Kingdom Hadley centre on the changing face of the United Kingdom's weather do not bring good news.
Temperatures are rising. The average global temperature in 1998 is likely to exceed that of 1997, which is the hottest on record. Rainfall will increase during the winter and autumn across the United Kingdom, especially in the north-west and Wales. Consequently, it is predicted that we will experience an increase in climatic extremes such as greater risk of flooding. Although the Government are taking a leading role in the world in addressing the threat of climate change, this evidence shows that the events in south Wales are likely to recur.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am not certain whether the Territorial Army was involved in dealing with the floods in Monmouth and the rest of south Wales, but would not the hon. Gentleman concede that, in general, the armed services, including the TA, become involved when such emergencies happen, and that that is one reason why we should be cautious about reductions in the TA, such as that announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Edwards: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will discuss the Army and the TA later in my speech.
Following the Easter floods, which affected mainly Northamptonshire, but also Skenfrith in Monmouthshire, the Government established an independent inquiry. I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), to ask for an independent inquiry into the recent floods, and I am disappointed that, in his parliamentary answer, he has rejected my request.
I ask him to reconsider, and to conduct a general review into flooding in Wales. The review could assess the preparation for climatic changes that seem to affect our country and other nations more frequently; whether our public services are equipped and prepared for civil emergencies such as major flooding, as occurred in south Wales recently and in Towyn in north Wales a few years ago; progress in establishing automatic warning systems; whether the powers of local authorities with respect to flooding should be reviewed and whether local authorities are adequately resourced to deal with flood emergencies; and what role the regular Army or Territorial Army can play in civil emergencies such as flooding.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) says, but it is important to remember that the aim of yesterday's announcement on the Territorial Army

was to ensure that the TA can be modernised to respond more effectively to emergencies in this country and abroad when necessary. However, there appears to be a grey area as to when and under what circumstances the Army and the TA in my area are brought in to respond to a civil emergency. I am concerned that the TA tells me that, under a provision of the previous Government, local authorities are billed for the response of the TA, which often makes them reluctant to call it out.
There is also a need to review planning guidelines on development on flood plains, following the recommendations of the Bye report into the Easter floods. One of the lessons of the October floods must be that planning guidelines need to be revised and consistent between Government Departments and the Environment Agency.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that prevention will be far cheaper than the cost of clear-up afterwards?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Surely the thrust of this debate is that prevention is better than cure.
The flooding of any person's home must be one of the most traumatic personal experiences. Some people have experienced flooding on more than one occasion. Many people live with the constant threat of flooding. For every one of those 500 or 600 families that were affected in October, it was a tragic event. They will naturally ask questions about the circumstances in which their properties were flooded and about the response of the public services.
The aim of the debate has been to raise the concerns of those who have been affected by the floods, to ask for a review into the response of the public services, and to ask the Government to consider whether we are capable of responding effectively to major incidents such as flooding that is caused by global warming.
At the Buenos Aires conference, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
The cost of climate change could be dwarfed by the cost of ignoring
it. That applies in Wales as it does everywhere else.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) for allowing me to participate in the debate. I shall confine my remarks to the local situation. As he pointed out, nearly 200 households in my constituency were seriously affected; they were in Merthyr Vale, Aberfan, Abercanaid, Quaker's Yard, New Tredegar and Tirphil. All suffered the heart-breaking consequences of flooding. I agree with my hon. Friend: there is nothing more heart-breaking than walking into a flooded home. Many people are proud of their homes. To see them covered in sludge and mud is terrible.
The heart-breaking consequences of flooding were brought home to us that weekend—more so in our case, because some of the same streets and communities were hit 20 years ago. Because we had believed that, in many cases, we had put up sufficient defences against a repetition of those heart-breaking events of Boxing night


and afterwards 20 years ago, it was all the more heart-breaking to see the same streets and communities affected—not all; some streets were not affected this time, but, in many cases, the same households were hit 20 years ago.
Therefore, rightly and understandably, there is a justifiable demand for answers about why the flooding happened. In the case of my constituency, there are three or four major questions. First, with all the elaborate processes that were supposed to be in place, why was there no flood warning alert until extremely late in the day—impossibly late to take any meaningful action in Merthyr Vale and Aberfan?
Secondly, many residents in my community testified to surges of clean water coming down the valley. The allegation has been made that, somehow, the water was released from reservoirs at the top. I know that it has been denied, but it has not been explained—another reason why we need an inquiry and the sort of assurances that an inquiry would bring.
Thirdly, the culverts just could not take it. We understand that the weather was exceptional, but I have heard residents say that some culverts and drains had not been maintained properly, supervised or regularly checked, despite repeated requests by local people, so there is the whole issue of maintenance of water systems.
Finally, there is river management: maintaining river banks, cleanliness and the safety of river flows. That was a factor in Tirphil and New Tredegar, where concerns had already been expressed to the Environment Agency some time ago.
All that points to a series of unanswered questions by all those in the communities most affected, and demands for action. In that case, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth is right. Besides the great climatic issues that he has properly raised—he has put flooding into the broader context—there is a need for answers to questions.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), has the power to appoint an inspector, so that evidence can be brought openly and fairly by residents and witnesses to the events to an independent inspector. The Environment Agency, Welsh Water and local authorities can then come to that inspector, explain and, I hope, discover openly and publicly the reasons for those events, and the action that can be taken to prevent them from happening again. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend does not slam the door on an inquiry, which is necessary to remove the understandable anger and scepticism that exists as a result of communities and households being flooded so tragically for the second time in 20 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on raising this important issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on supporting him, and the many hon. Friends who are also on the Benches to support my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth and to represent constituents who have suffered grievously in the floods.
Twenty years ago, on 27 December, while in Aberdare, I was one of those unfortunate residents who was flooded in that severe flood. As I lived in a bungalow at the time,

it was particularly problematic, so I genuinely recognise the difficulties facing many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth.
Unfortunately, floods are a fact of life, and some flooding is inescapable. Nevertheless, although we cannot prevent flooding, we can take action to reduce the risks. When flooding does occur, we must ensure that we do all we can to issue appropriate warnings and to mitigate its effects.
I pay tribute to the strenuous efforts of all those involved in alleviating the effects of the recent flooding in Wales, particularly the staff of the Environment Agency, who worked very long hours to provide round-the-clock forecasting and warning. I was able to see them in action on the Saturday that much of the flooding occurred, and was impressed by the way in which they were handling matters.
The Environment Agency work force, from both Wales and England, who came to provide relief, were extremely busy checking the security of the agency's defences, reinforcing them as necessary, and otherwise assisting whenever they could. Likewise, staff from many local authorities were keeping their defences in order, clearing debris from culverts, and sandbagging, saving many properties from the effects of flooding. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, some areas were flooded. Our sincere thanks must go yet again to the police, fire service, local authorities and voluntary organisations that were involved in evacuation, providing temporary accommodation and assisting with clean-up operations.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our sympathy to all the people whose homes and businesses were damaged and whose lives were affected by the event, and, in particular, to those who suffered bereavement. I offer my sincere condolences to their families and friends.
I am aware that, for various reasons, some people were not insured. Help may be available to flood victims in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance from the social fund by way of community-care grants or interest-free budgeting loans. People who are not receiving income support may be eligible for a crisis loan. Guidance has recently been issued to all social fund staff on the payment of grants to victims of disasters such as fire floods; that does not, of course, change the policy of successive Governments that, in the case of individuals and most organisations, responsibility for their property is a matter for them.
The rainfall that lead to the flooding was severe. Up to 9 in was recorded between 20 and 25 October, when the flooding was worst in the south Wales valleys. There was further heavy rain on 27 and 31 October, which caused flooding in mid-Wales and the Vale of Glamorgan respectively. The ground was already saturated, and the rainfall simply ran off the hillsides towards the rivers, with little being absorbed.
That rainfall led to large increases in the flow of water in many rivers. Reservoirs overflowed—as they are designed to in such events, for safety reasons. Some, including hon. Members today, have asked whether the flows downstream were increased by discretionary releases that exacerbated flooding, but I am assured that they were not. The hydrological data requested by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) will soon make its way to him.


I have overall responsibility for flood defence in Wales, and administer grant aid for capital schemes, but the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of defence measures on main rivers is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. In the case of ordinary watercourses, responsibility rests with local authorities and internal drainage boards. The Environment Agency, however, is also required to exercise general supervision of all matters relating to flood defence, and I have therefore asked the agency for a full report on the floods.
In an interim report to me, the agency has said that the impact on some rivers in south Wales was on a par with that of 1979. On that occasion, flooding of towns and villages was widespread: more than 7,500 properties were flooded, including several hundred in Monmouth. I understand that, on this occasion, only about 700 properties were flooded throughout Wales. That reflects well on investment in flood defences on rivers in south Wales over the past few decades.

Mr. Keetch: I am sorry to press the Minister, but the flooding of the River Wye in Herefordshire, which subsequently affected Monmouth, was considerably worse than the flooding in 1979: indeed, local experts have described it as the worst since 1960. Will the Environment Agency's interim report, and the full report, cover the English borders?

Mr. Jones: My responsibilities cover the borders within Wales. I am not sure of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will write to him as soon as I have discovered it.
I must give credit to the work of the regional flood defence committee for Wales, and to the relevant local flood defence committees. With the support of the Environment Agency and its predecessors, they have guided and overseen the investment. Much of the money for the work has been provided by local authorities through levies, and I acknowledge the part that those authorities have played in the improvement of defence to protect their towns and villages. That is, of course, in addition to local authorities' own expenditure on flood alleviation in the smaller watercourses and local drainage.
As a result of that expenditure, no properties were flooded on this occasion in Monmouth, where enhanced protection has been provided. It is simply not physically or economically possible to protect everyone, which is why the Government have given flood warning the highest priority.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend says that there was no flooding in Monmouth. According to the Environment Agency, four properties were flooded, but they were outside the defended area.

Mr. Jones: I apologise. I was not informed that properties in Monmouth were flooded.
Flood warning is one of the functions of the Environment Agency. Just two years ago, it was asked to take over the dissemination of such warnings from the police, and to expand the service over a period of five years. For that purpose, new technology has been introduced in the form of automatic voice messaging,

so that anyone whose property is at risk of flooding can be dialled and given warning. More general warnings are given to local authorities, emergency services and other organisations, including the media.
General warnings of serious flooding to properties were given on 19 rivers simultaneously at the height of the event. Although not all whom the agency wishes to be on the system in the long term are connected yet, it used the system to issue 16,500 individual flood warnings between 20 and 25 October.
The areas worst affected by flooding from rivers were Aberfan, Llandovery, Pencoed and Aberdulais. At Pontardawe in the Swansea valley, serious flooding was caused by a breach in the bank of the Swansea canal. There were also instances, too numerous to mention, of flooding from blockage of culverts, and from surface water drains that were unable to cope with the deluge.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I briefly make a point that no one has made so far? One of the most alarming and depressing features of flooding, especially in urban areas, is the contamination of flood water by sewage. Will my hon. Friend be touching on that? One of the fears that people experience when they are cleaning up and deciding whether to throw carpets away is that fear of sewage contamination.

Mr. Jones: I know that it is a big problem, but I do not know at this stage whether it can be avoided, either practically or financially.
I look forward to the Environment Agency's more comprehensive report on the flooding. Work is being commissioned separately from independent consultants on the situation at Aberfan, and their findings will be made available. The British Waterways Board has commissioned an independent report on the flooding at Pontardawe. We shall look closely at those reports, for there are always lessons to be learnt. I expect central Government, flood defence committees, the Environment Agency and local authorities to learn from the experience, so that we may do better in the future. We cannot stop rain or flooding, but, when cost-effective action can reduce the risks, we must ensure that it is taken.
I have been asked today for a separate independent inquiry into the flooding. I have considered the matter carefully, but, in the light of the work that is to be undertaken, I do not believe that such an inquiry is needed on this occasion. The Environment Agency commissioned an independent review of the flooding at Easter from Mr. Peter Bye. The need for an independent review arose on that occasion because of a widespread concern about the failure to issue warnings, and other significant operational issues.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement on the Bye report to the House on 20 October. As he said then, the Government and the Environment Agency take the report very seriously, and are moving swiftly to deal with the vital issues that were identified in it.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend said that the inquiry was held because of flood warning problems. Flood warning is one of the big issues affecting Aberfan and


Merthyr Vale. Does not the fact that warnings were not given there strengthen our case for the appointment of an inspector?

Mr. Jones: At the time of the Easter floods, there was widespread concern about the failure to give warnings, but that was not the case in Wales. The report arising from the English floods, however, has identified numerous issues, and an action plan will be announced before the end of the month. A comprehensive series of measures will be taken, all of which will affect the way in which we deal with floods in Wales in the future. It is not felt at this stage that an additional independent inquiry is necessary in Wales.
Naturally, the conclusions and recommendations of the Bye report will be foremost in minds when considering what lessons might be drawn from the recent flooding. I note that, during the debate on the Bye report, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth queried whether Welsh Office planning guidelines needed to be revised so that there is a presumption against new housing development on flood plains. Responsibility for preparing development plans and determining planning applications rests with local planning authorities.
Current planning guidance that local planning authorities should take into account in carrying out those duties is stated in the document "Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy". The guidance advises authorities to ensure that development plan policies and planning decisions take account—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

Lockerbie

1 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am very glad to have this opportunity, in a very brief Adjournment debate, to raise the issue of trial at the Hague. I know that my interest in the subject is shared very much by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has fought so hard over the years to get the truth told about Lockerbie. I certainly hope that it will be possible for him to speak in the debate.
One point that we have to bear in mind straight away is that, without this half-hour debate, there would be absolutely no opportunity to debate a rather dramatic, significant and expensive initiative by the Government before 21 December 1998, which is the date on which the United States has been quoted publicly, perhaps incorrectly, as saying that the plug will be pulled on the proposals and that an endeavour will be made to impose more comprehensive sanctions. The House is therefore entitled to ask a few questions about the proposals.
The first and most obvious question is whether there is any time limit on the proposed agreement. The resolution was proposed in the United Nations and the agreement on the trial made between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. However, as the United States seems to have taken on the role of emperor of the world, in a position superior to that of such rather pedestrian institutions as the United Nations, it would be helpful if the Government would say whether there is a relevant time limit.
Secondly, is it the case, as reported in the press, that the premises of the proposed Scottish court will be located on a former United States airbase? As is well known, that suggestion has caused great suspicion in Libya. It would be helpful if the Government would say whether a decision has been made on the location and whether there might be some merit in locating the court in an existing building. The third and most obvious question that the House should ask is, what is the estimated cost of the trial and who will pay for it?
I want to make it abundantly clear that I have absolutely no doubts about the integrity of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whose attendance I appreciate. I appreciate also the attendance of the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, who is very busy indeed, but has a great interest in the problem.
It is very important that the Government should be aware of the real suspicions of the Libyans, who, in the normal course of events, have a very good bargain in sending over two of their citizens for trial in exchange for an end to sanctions and all that goes with them. Ministers should be aware that some in Libya have a suspicion that the whole business is a plot by the US, which put the matter before the UN simply because it thought that it would not be able to renew sanctions.
Some specific issues arise from the proposals. The first is the agreement between Britain and the Netherlands. Can that be changed without the agreement of the Libyan authorities? That is a very important point. As the trial procedure appears to have been set out entirely on the basis of an agreement between Britain and the Netherlands, there seems to be absolutely no reason why the two countries cannot propose changes. Is that the case?


Secondly, what is the reason for a provision in the agreement for a possible transfer of the trial to Scotland if the two suspects agree to it? It seems difficult to understand why the provision was included, and I should like to know why it was. Thirdly, will sanctions be suspended and not terminated? That matter, too, causes suspicion and is something on which the Minister should comment.
There are wider issues that I hope the Government will consider. First, there has been massive press coverage and television programmes in Libya—I have seen them myself—about the alleged plot to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi, which was revealed by Mr. David Shaylor, a former MI5 official. The Foreign Office has said that the report is without foundation, that it did not approve it, and that the whole thing is a figment of someone's imagination. However, the assassination attempt was real and several people were killed. It is all recorded on film.
Secondly, Mr. Shaylor, who we understand was the head of the Libyan desk in MI5, not only stated that MI6 had initiated the plot, but gave full details about an amount of money, alleged to be £100,000, and to whom it was paid—a Mr. Tonworth, who was an intermediary for a fundamentalist group. Thirdly, it was stated that documents about the assassination attempt were circulating freely within Government offices. Fourthly, it has come to my notice that about a quarter of the material that was to be used in the "Panorama" programme was removed on Government instructions. Substantial and significant injunctions on publication of the details have been imposed on newspapers and television programmes.
As the Minister is well aware, it is alleged that the whole business was thought up not by the current Government, but by the previous Government. However, it would be very helpful in trying to resolve the dispute with Libya if the Government said that there would be a proper inquiry. It would be helpful to know if there was no such sum, if the man who allegedly received the money does not exist, and if the organisation in London which seemed to start the business does not exist. If there were such an assassination attempt, I can think of nothing wrong in telling the truth. I have often taken the view that truth is the secret weapon in politics. Indeed, I think that many of our problems in international relations would be resolved and removed if the truth was told.
I should make it abundantly clear that that particular assassination attempt has been shown widely on television in Libya. There have been full details of all that went before it; details of people allegedly giving information about it; and details of its background. We have not seen many of those details in the United Kingdom, undoubtedly because of the injunction. However, some comment should be made on the matter.
It would be helpful if the Government would state—as I am sure the Minister could for himself—that they had no part in the mass of damaging and wholly untrue stories printed about Libya. I could mention many such stories, but will concentrate specifically on one that was published very recently. The Sunday Telegraph—a respectable newspaper that I always buy and enjoy reading—published one of the many stories circulating. It was headed "New Clue Points to WPC's Killer".
As we well know, there has recently been a great deal of evidence on television programmes and in the press that the killer of WPC Fletcher was not someone from the Libyan embassy, and that the bullet came from another building. I do not know the truth, but the story has stirred up some sentiment on the matter.
The dramatic story in The Sunday Telegraph stated that Scotland Yard had launched a fresh investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher after receiving new evidence about the identity of her killer. It seems that that new evidence pointed to a Libyan, because the story went on to say that, because of "dramatic new information", there would soon be an attempt to extradite the guilty party from Libya. The newspaper, to strengthen the story, added a long comment from the Home Secretary, who said that there would shortly be a conclusion of the review.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Ever since I visited Assistant Commissioner David Venness in Scotland Yard, I have believed that Scotland Yard is doing its utmost to resolve the problem of what it called "one of its own". It is a matter not only of a television programme but of the evidence, on camera, of George Styles, one of the British Army's senior ballistics officers; of Hugh Thomas, consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast; and of Bernard Knight, the Home Office pathologist—who was considered responsible enough to be put in charge of Cromwell street and much else. It is a formidable case.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman knows all about the situation. A report into the problem has been initiated, and we shall be interested to see it when it eventually emerges. I phoned the assistant commissioner whom the hon. Gentleman named. He kindly put me on to the inspector in charge of the inquiry, who courteously explained that, as I had suspected, the story in The Sunday Telegraph was, in his words, "a load of codswallop". There had been no new evidence. The Metropolitan police had not been consulted about the story. There was no new inquiry. I asked him if I could quote our conversation in this debate, and he gladly agreed.
The inspector further explained that the original inquiry, which had been proceeding for a long time, was nearing completion. However, the damage done by the story is pretty obvious. It is a shame that it appeared in a paper that I have always respected. The quotation in the story from the Home Secretary came from a written answer some time ago in response to a question about the inquiry.
There have been many other such stories. There was one about a secret chemical arms factory in a mountain, which I know contained nothing but a pipe taking water to Tripoli. It was important to Libya. We asked for an independent investigation, and the facts were confirmed. Another rather strange story was published after the terrible recent events in Northern Ireland, suggesting that the new IRA had connections with Libya. Again, every inquiry that I made showed the story to be nonsense. Such stories are printed all the time and cause concern in Libya. I am sure that the Government will confirm that the story that I have referred to is untrue and that there was no question of the Government being involved in circulating such stories.


Are the Government aware of the impact on British trade and industry of the negative opinions resulting from such activities as we have witnessed over the alleged assassination? When I visited Libya for a couple of days recently, I was very worried by a widely circulated document entitled "Embargo on Goods of US and UK Origin". It tells a supplier:
As for your argument regarding the easy nature of the procedures applied in dealing with UK companies, this is not a sufficient reason for you to disregard the instructions issued in connection with this matter. You are to note that GMRA's approval of some equipment from the UK was an exception intended to assist the company in specific circumstances and should not be used as a rule for what comes later.
That worried me a great deal, because, although I have no interest in firms dealing with Libya, I know that Britain had a good trade relationship with Libya. There is a good sentiment towards the United Kingdom in Libya, particularly because of the events of the second world war. My fear is that, as has happened in other places, Britain is being outsmarted. I am sure that the Minister is well aware that it is difficult to move in Tripoli for Frenchmen these days.
The Minister should be aware that, although the sanctions have been imposed by many countries, the resentment felt in Libya is towards Britain and the United States. My fear is that the Government's well-intended initiative will collapse because they are not prepared to go the extra mile to resolve the situation. The Government have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to bring about a settlement in Northern Ireland, where the problems are frightening. We all hope that they succeed.
The issues that need to resolved could be sorted out in private, meaningful, detailed discussions. Such discussions took place some years ago on Libya's previous links with the IRA. I understand that full information was given on the basis of private discussions in which respect was shown. If the Government initiated such private discussions between officials and the Libyan authorities, nothing would be lost and a great deal could be gained. There would be a better chance of success, an opportunity to remove fears and proof of good will. If things went wrong, at least the Government's case would be strengthened by having gone all the way and tried all they could to resolve the situation.
As the Minister is aware, I received a letter from the Libyan Foreign Minister saying that Libya agreed to the trial if certain assurances were given. The letter ended:
Libya has emerged from a horrendous endeavour to destroy it with greater strength and unity. We will be glad to co-operate with any honest endeavours to resolve the dispute, but will insist that our nation and people be treated with the dignity and fairness which this victory makes appropriate.
I have no doubt that, on the basis of his previous experience in the House and his work in the Foreign Office, the Minister intends to try to resolve the issue. However, I fear, particularly for the sake of the relatives of those who lost their lives at Lockerbie, that things will go wrong because of a lack of understanding, a lack of commitment and, perhaps, a lack of awareness of what is involved in the various discussions. We have a duty to those who lost their lives to ensure that the truth is told. I welcome what has been proposed, but I hope that the Government realise that to make it happen there could be a case for endeavouring further to resolve the fears and suspicions of Libya. The Government may regard those fears and suspicions as unjustified, but they certainly exist.
I wish the Government every success in what they are doing. They should be driven by the feelings of those who lost relatives in the dreadful bombing at Lockerbie. They want the truth to be told. That can happen only if there is a proper trial. To achieve a trial, the Government must show the necessary good will. I hope that they will, and that progress will be made.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish that the Crown Office and the Foreign Office would start to talk directly to the Libyans.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, the Government have already taken part in a dramatic and significant initiative on the issues surrounding Lockerbie. That initiative was driven by the same sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed at the end of his speech. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend the Lord Advocate were exercised by the position of the families, as was I. At that time the families had been looking for truth and justice for nearly nine years and had found little of either—only frustration.
When we came to power, we looked to see what we could do to break the impasse. We were also conscious of the words of friends of Britain, such as President Mandela, who asked whether it was possible to begin to look at ways of moving the situation forward. We considered carefully how that could be done, consistent with certain principles, which had to include the need for real justice to be seen to be done, the need to maintain the integrity of the Scottish judicial system and the need to ensure that no one could regard it as a search for a political compromise, because our prime concern was to ensure that what was offered served the interests of the families.
We took that important initiative in good faith in a public domain. We look for that good faith to be returned. Enabling the Scottish justice system to operate effectively in the Netherlands was not an easy undertaking. The legal and administrative issues were many and complex. We are deeply grateful to the Government of the Netherlands for all the work that they have done to make the trial possible. Our painstakingly worked-out proposal of 24 August was unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in resolution 1192 on 27 August. It is fair, comprehensive and workable.
Our objective is what it has always been: a free and fair trial—nothing more, nothing less. In discussing the elements of the initiative with the Governments of the United States and of the Netherlands, we were acutely aware of the need to ensure that the proposal was fair not only to the prosecution but to the defence. It would not be right, nor would it serve any of our interests, to engage in a flawed process. The demands of justice require a fair trial.
We have made it clear that the terms of the initiative are not negotiable. That is right and proper, and I repeat that it is now supported by the Security Council resolution. However, we have been willing to provide comprehensive clarification where requested by Libya, and it may be helpful if I explain what some of those


clarifications have been. It is right that we should be ready to explain why we are satisfied that the proposal provides for a fair trial.
The answers that we have provided show that there is no hidden agenda, that the trial will be of the two accused alone, that any witnesses who may travel from Libya will have safe passage and immunity from arrest for any offence committed before arrival in the Netherlands, and that sanctions will be suspended when the two accused arrive in the Netherlands for trial. We want Libya to understand that we are acting in good faith.
In response to his question, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have provided that clarification through the good offices of Kofi Annan as United Nations Secretary-General. That was foreseen in the Security Council resolution. It is important because it provides transparency and an additional assurance to the Libyans that we mean what we say. What we say is there for all to see.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Why are sanctions being suspended rather than terminated?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will address several of the issues that he has raised, but first I shall run through the main points about the process in which we are engaging.
We want a transparent process. It is helpful if the process is dealt with through the Secretary-General, because that makes it clear that Lockerbie is not simply a bilateral British-Libyan operation, or even an issue between the United States and Libya, but is now of international interest. The will of the international community, unanimously expressed through the Security Council, is that Libya should accept the terms of the Security Council resolutions.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should enter into discreet negotiations with Libya. However, the families of those who died on Pan Am flight 103 demand to know the truth. Secret bilateral deals would not help them, and are not necessary. The channel of communication through the Secretary-General has worked well in providing Libya with the information sought, and we have answered fully every question put to us.
The hon. Gentleman asked me several questions, and I shall try to answer them. There is no formal time limit on the process, but he will realise that that does not mean that we can wait around indefinitely for a response. The offer was made in good faith, and good faith on the other side demands some reciprocity, which we have yet to see.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the location of the trial. It is true that the place is a former air base that was used by, among others, the United States. That does not happen now and has not happened for some time. There are no United States troops there now, and the area is sovereign Dutch territory again. Even the Libyans do not now see its former role as a major obstacle.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs of the trial. Various estimates can be made, but it is a measure of the spirit in which the Lord Advocate and the Foreign Secretary entered into the process that cost was not an issue. Justice is the issue. Yes, the suggested trial will be significantly more expensive than a trial in Scotland,

but because we are determined to seek proper justice, costs are not a determining factor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
I was also asked whether the agreement with the Dutch could be rewritten or unwritten. That agreement is underwritten by an Order in Council, and as it is of the nature of a treaty, it is not amendable. None the less, it is inconceivable that a process that has been transparent could be altered without the alteration being equally transparent. I hope that, even if the hon. Gentleman is cynical about what the British Government might do, he would accept that the Dutch Government come here with clean and honest hands. There would be no reason why they should want to amend a treaty for nefarious purposes at a later stage.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the suspension of sanctions. The Security Council resolution is specific on that point, and says that, when the two accused are delivered to The Hague for trial, sanctions will be suspended. I assume that the hon. Gentleman fears that sanctions will somehow be reimposed later, but it would be incredible if we tried to get away with that in the court of world opinion.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman further. Even if that were the hidden agenda of the British Government, once sanctions had been suspended, a decision by the Security Council would be required to alter the sanctions regime from suspension. Neither the British nor the Americans could do that; it would require action by the whole Security Council. That is a protection for the Libyans.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the allegations by Mr. Shayler. It is far from unknown for those who seek to make money out of their former careers to go way beyond the bounds of fact and enter a world of romance, and the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that there is no truth in the allegations. I stand by that statement, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman openly that neither under previous Governments nor under the present Government has there been any shred of evidence to support Mr. Shayler's allegations.
I shall almost repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already told the House about the case of WPC Fletcher, when I say that it is under active investigation by the Metropolitan police, who will report to the Home Secretary when their findings are complete. There is no connection between the Lockerbie situation, involving the trial and the sanctions, and the case of WPC Fletcher. It is important that the House and the world know that.
We want the WPC Fletcher case to be resolved. We still believe that the action was committed by the Libyan authorities, and it would be helpful if the Libyans conceded that point and accepted liability for compensation. That would be a positive step forward in building good faith.
We have already provided clarification, and I have, I hope, provided some more today. In principle, clarification about the trial process has been provided through the offices of the United Nations Secretary-General. We have not taken those steps lightly, and they are not merely a gesture. We are serious; we want a trial before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, so that this distressing issue can be brought to an end.


We have done, and are still doing, everything possible to ensure that outcome. We introduced the necessary changes to Scots law by Order in Council on 16 September, and the Foreign Secretary has told the House that an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands was signed on 18 September. We want to make progress, and we are confident that in proposing to agree with the Government of the Netherlands on an early date for the agreement to enter into force, we are acting with the will of the House. Work is under way to prepare the trial site. All we need now is a positive response from the Libyans.
I want to reiterate that sanctions are not designed to punish the Libyan people. It is neither our wish nor our intention to keep Libya under UN sanctions indefinitely for some undefined political purpose. The UN sanctions have a legitimate purpose—they are designed and mandated by the UN Security Council to press Libya to fulfil its obligations under UN resolutions. When Libya conforms to the resolutions, sanctions can be brought to an end.
I hope that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East takes my words to heart. We will support the suspension of sanctions in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1192 when the accused arrive in the Netherlands for trial. Given the purpose of sanctions and the way in which we propose to make progress, it would be wrong and illogical—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is time for the next debate.

West Hertfordshire Health Authority

Mr. Tony McWalter: Very often, an Adjournment debate can be a lonely business, with sometimes just oneself and somebody else on the Front Bench. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to come here accompanied by a box which contains the signatures of some 35,610 objectors to various plans made by West Hertfordshire health authority. I understand that another 36,000 people from Watford are similarly inclined to object to the use made by the authority of the private finance initiative.
In asking for a debate on this matter, I was not trying to be a fundamentalist about the use of the PFI. In my constituency, I have been desperate to try to get a new initiative for a matter on which the public authorities seem to have become locked into inaction. In particular, I am trying to get a road from St. Albans road in Hemel Hempstead—a dual carriageway—into the wonderful new £5 million accident and emergency unit at Hemel Hempstead hospital. I hope to get that road, and I will be happy to trade with anyone in the private sector who wishes to provide the necessary expertise, energy and financial input.
Sometimes, the PFI might allow one to get something done which previously was not being done. However, looking at the Government's strategy for health, I am forced to suggest to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) that perhaps there is a conflict between the untrammelled operation of the PFI and the Government's strategy for improving health care. After all, the Government want to invest in a better NHS. Indeed, they have made £21 billion available for that investment over the next three years.
We all want that investment to be used for the kind of capital investment that would achieve substantial revenue savings. For instance, a hospital that is poorly insulated is often in that condition because of desperate neglect over many years. If the insulation is improved in a poorly insulated hospital with a high energy bill, revenue savings will be made. In the case of the general hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward), such neglect has resulted in a backlog of repairs of some £7 million. That ought to be rectified by a Government who are committed to investing in the NHS. If the insulation is improved in a poorly insulated hospital with a high energy bill, revenue savings will be made.
Revenue savings can also be made by appropriate investment in information technology. Revenue savings can be made—this is a case close to my heart—by trying to improve nurses' accommodation, so that they are attracted to living near a town centre hospital, such as Hemel Hempstead or Watford, where medical staff have the amenities of a town centre, and of affordable housing. Where such investment in accommodation has been made, the health trust will not have to pay ludicrous amounts to get or to manage temporary or agency staff.
Revenue savings can lead to real improvements in health, and I commend the Government's strategy for investment. Capital investment initiatives can lead to a virtuous circle, in which hospitals and trusts begin to think of real improvements in the quality of care they give their


patients. In Hertfordshire, there is the possibility of a link with the newly emerging health faculty at the university of Hertfordshire, which could lead to the county becoming an attractive place for practitioners and nurses to work. I shall be having lunch with the current vice-chancellor of the university after this debate to discuss that very matter.
I understand the strategy adopted by the Government, but the strategy adopted by West Hertfordshire health authority seems to be about as far removed from the Government's as it is possible to imagine. To start with, the authority wants to attack the five hospitals that are built, operating and functioning. These include hospitals in Hemel Hempstead and Watford—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is not here to defend Mount Vernon hospital—which have produced more than 70,000 people who support their retention. The people of west Hertfordshire are worried by the prospect that the wonderful deposit of NHS resources, built up since the start of the NHS in 1948, might be frittered away on the PFI-inspired philosophy of the health authority.
The PFI is inappropriate for our current circumstances. A House of Commons research paper on the matter states that the need for the private finance initiative was initially put in place so that up-front capital funding for new developments was replaced with a long-term revenue commitment by the public sector. It said that no longer would the NHS own an asset—it would lease it. Assets that were publicly held would be lost.
That is not the situation in which we find ourselves. The Government want to make capital investment and to save on revenue—yet the PFI points the other way.
Despite the language of the West Hertfordshire health authority—which talks about a "new super—hospital"—the proposal represents a substantial cut in the facilities available to the people of west Hertfordshire. According to the authority's figures, there will be a cut from 1,170 acute places to between 695 and 730. This cut is portrayed in the authority's documents as if it were somehow a benefit. If that is a benefit, I would rather do without it.
There is also the problem that the process has cost a huge amount of public money in consultation.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the health authority has conducted consultation, and that the response that it has received from the public–80,000 signatures collected by a pressure group—local Members of Parliament and the local authorities has shown that there is objection to the proposal and to the favoured option of the building of a new hospital?

Mr. McWalter: That is true, and the public's understanding of such matters often transcends that of hon. Members in this Chamber.
In the consultative process, it is unclear what the terms of reference of any PFI contract are to be. I do not know this to be the case, but what I call a "BOOT" system may be in operation—that is, build, own, operate and transfer. In such a case, at the end of the contract the assets are held by the private consortium. In west Hertfordshire, acute facilities at four hospitals could be downgraded and any number of them could close down, with the remaining community hospital at Harpenden closing as well. In west

Hertfordshire, the operators of the NHS system have carte blanche, under their current plans, to do what they like with current assets.

Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the objection of local people to the West Hertfordshire health authority is not necessarily an objection in principle to the PFI, but to the proposals that the authority has put forward? It has not made a case for its option, either financially or strategically.

Mr. McWalter: That is a good point, but the trouble with the PH is that, when the previous Administration introduced it, it was a recipe for inactivity and for saving public money. This Government have made large amounts of money available for investment, and what worries many of us is that that investment could destroy public assets. In west Hertfordshire, we have the example of an asset that is held by the public—five hospitals. In 30 years' time, we could end up publicly not owning one brick or a trowel full of mortar.
Another important aspect is that the revenue projections of the process are extremely unclear. In a representation to the Treasury Select Committee two years ago, Christopher Bland, head of the private finance panel said that when he asked such questions as, "What are the revenue implications of the PFI contracts signed for, say, 2005?" Lo and behold, the answers were not forthcoming. We are in strong danger not only of losing public assets, but of buying an expensive pig in a poke.

Mr. Richard Page: I agree that the revenue projections are exceedingly shaky and that they have to be fleshed out in greater detail, but is not the basic reason why the process is taking place—unless the Minister is going to give us some good news at the Dispatch Box right now—that the Government will not give the money to maintain the status quo?

Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that the status quo is deeply unsatisfactory because the Conservative Government introduced an odious system called capital charges, which required all health operators to study their asset base and to make substantial payments—on average 9 per cent. of their income. West Hertfordshire health authority would not be in deficit if it were not for the capital charges—

Mr. Page: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the way in which capital charges are operated. If they were removed, we would have no problems in west Hertfordshire and could continue with the status quo.

Mr. McWalter: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for what appear to me to be policies designed to ensure that public assets remain in the public sector, rather than the policies of the previous Government, who did their level best to ensure that a haemorrhaging of public assets into the private sector.
Apart from threatening the very fabric of the NHS in west Hertfordshire, the overall impact of the plans, assuming that we do not have the BOOT system and the asset is not transferred but is kept within the public sector through some devious route—possibly a joint venture in which each party gets 50 per cent., for example—would be that the asset base on which the health authority has to


pay capital charges would be greater than it is now, according to all the figures that I have seen. Therefore, the authority's deficit would be even larger. Therefore, implicit in its plans must be a substantial reduction in the asset base, which means that an awful lot of hospital closures that have not been accounted for must be in the pipeline.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that a conflict exists between retaining the PFI as, potentially, a force for squeezing out public sector holdings and assets, and retaining it for its potential to be used in new and improved schemes. It is a major mistake to retain a PH that is designed to erode, compromise or put into joint venture holdings capital assets that are publicly owned.
Those matters are all relatively new, and many of us have been awaiting the comprehensive spending review to find out precisely what sort of shape we may be able to put the NHS in over the next few years. I have already said that I strongly welcome what the Government are doing in that regard, but there is a head-on conflict between substantial capital investment and continuing to keep the PH, which could result in the haemorrhaging of the very resources that one wants to put at the disposal of the health service. We want a system of public investment and expenditure that is not designed to erode the very basis of health provision.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The reservations that my hon. Friend has expressed about private finance developments in Hertfordshire are shared by people in Birmingham, who are worried about private finance initiatives there. Resources are being diverted from care into paying for the raising of capital by private sector companies, which is more expensive than it would be in the public sector.

Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend has a good point, and I hope that it will be considered. The present 20-year interest rate for public finance is 4.77 per cent., whereas the cheapest possible rate for private finance is more than 6 per cent. We are already faced with a spread or differential that makes it extremely difficult to manage the interest payments that will be required through such initiatives. That in itself represents a haemorrhaging of resources. I look forward to the Minister telling me that PFIs that have the capacity to undermine public assets and provision will not be welcome in his Department.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am happy to have the opportunity to respond to the debate launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and congratulate him on securing the time for it. The issue is of considerable concern to his constituents and, indeed, to some hon. Friends and other hon. Members in the Chamber.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government share his aim to provide a high-quality national health service for the people of this country, wherever they live. The national health service was founded on the principle that the very best health care should be available to everyone—a principle that the previous Government did their best to erode and which this Government are determined to restore.
We are doing that by modernising the national health service, by making its services faster and more convenient for patients, by tackling variations in quality, by improving standards and by developing integrated services around the needs of individual patients and across the traditional care boundaries. Above all, we are doing it by transforming the NHS from a sickness service into a service that works in partnership with others to reduce the appalling health inequalities that are a scar on our nation.
The Government's modernisation programme is extremely ambitious—it will take time and a great deal of money. From next April, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead rightly said, a record £21 billion of extra investments will start to come on line to help to modernise the NHS. All parts of the country will benefit.
The comments of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) could not have been wider of the mark. The Government have made available extra investment over and above that planned by the Conservative Government. In the past 18 months, we have provided West Hertfordshire health authority with an extra £15.4 million. Moreover, we recently announced next year's allocations, which include a further £19 million for West Hertfordshire—a cash increase of 6.38 per cent., which I hope will be warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That money is necessary to modernise and sustain services.
The money is also necessary to sort out the mess that the Government inherited. When we came to office, 72 of 100 health authorities, including West Hertfordshire, were in deficit. Across the country, we reduced the total deficits in health authorities from £238 million to less than £20 million at the end of 1997–98. In West Hertfordshire, the deficit has been reduced from £4 million to less than £2 million.
The Government are delivering on their promise not only to save the NHS but to modernise it as well. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that we were also elected on a manifesto promise to sort out the problems that have plagued the private finance initiative so that it could work for the benefit of the health service. We have delivered on that promise, too.
We inherited a PFI process under which no new hospitals had been built. A lot of money—£30 million, I think—had been spent on management consultant and legal fees, but no bricks had been laid and no bulldozers had been moved. Today, because of our actions, work has started on the construction of eight hospitals under PFI. Since we came to office, we have been able to announce the biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS–31 new hospitals worth almost £2.4 billion, 25 of which will be built through PFI, with a total value of almost £2.2 billion.
We will give the go-ahead to PFI proposals only after it has been shown that they are affordable and offer taxpayers better value for money than a publicly funded alternative. Unlike the previous Government, we will not allow any clinical services to be included in a PFI deal. We are also making the whole PFI process more open, and we have considered how better to protect the interests of staff who are included in PFI deals.
I know that there are concerns, both in the House and beyond, about PFI in the NHS, but public-private partnerships are here to stay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) said, patients are not


worried about whether hospitals are built through cash from the PFI or through cash from the Exchequer; their concern is, rightly, that new hospitals should be built.
The situation in west Hertfordshire is complex. The proposal to build a brand new hospital in the health authority's area has been submitted, with nine others, to the capital prioritisation advisory group. I established CPAG to advise me on which major hospital developments were most needed in the NHS—under our arrangements, NHS needs, not the whims of the private sector, but to decide where new hospitals will be built. I will shortly be considering CPAG's advice on the proposals in west Hertfordshire, but I will not give the go ahead to any new hospital unless it is part and parcel of a proper local plan for delivering and sustaining high-quality local health services.

Ms Ward: Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will not allow the proposals to be acted on until the health authority has answered the genuine points that have been raised by members of the public and the local authority and until it has investigated every other option, which it has so far failed to do?

Mr. Milburn: I shall speak about that in a moment. In the consultation process—in west Hertfordshire or anywhere else—I expect those who play a decision-making role in the NHS to listen seriously to what concerned patients, organisations and communities say. Inevitably, difficult decisions have to be taken, but I expect to see evidence that local concerns have been analysed extremely carefully.
Any proposal for local hospital developments must be part and parcel of a properly worked through local health plan to deliver quality and sustainable services. There have been far too many cases of ad hoc hospital developments, which have proved to be unsustainable precisely because they were not considered as part of the local configuration of services.
There is no final agreed plan for the make-up of local hospital or broader health services in west Hertfordshire. The health authority has consulted widely on its radical proposals for changes to hospital services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead is aware, the health authority agreed at its public meeting on 30 October to take a staged approach in changing local health services. That was in response to the strength of local feeling and to the need to provide further information on the authority's proposals. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford have reflected those concerns today.
As I understand the position, the South-West Hertfordshire community health council will formally object to the proposals, so the matter will be referred to Ministers. I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand that my position as a Minister prevents me from commenting on the proposals at the moment. If the local community health council formally objects to the proposals that the health authority adopts after the consultation period, the matter will be referred to me for a decision.
I assure my hon. Friends that the Department of Health is fully committed to the provision of high-quality, up-to-date treatment in a modern and responsive health service. If the matter is referred, Ministers will uphold the health authority's decision only if we are satisfied that adequate alternative services are available. I have heard what my hon. Friends have said and I assure them that their points will be borne fully in mind when we consider the matter. I also give the specific assurance that I will not approve any proposal through the CPAG process for a new hospital until Ministers have considered the make up of health services in the area.
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and others have said. I know that their concerns are shared by many people in the community. Difficult decisions have to be taken, not least because of the financial problems that the previous Government left in the health service.
My hon. Friend also knows that the NHS in west Hertfordshire and elsewhere cannot stand still. Progress in medical technology and in doctors' training and the alterations in our population and in public expectations are all driving change. No change is not an option for the NHS. Our job is to ensure that change delivers improvements in the care and treatment of patients. I assure him that any proposals for change in west Hertfordshire that the Government consider will be judged against that criterion.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [17th November] as relates to the London Local Authorities Bill be now considered.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.— [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Public Services (New Technology)

Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans he has to extend the use of new technologies by public services to improve their performance and allow greater access by the public. [58911]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I am pleased to announce that a contract has been signed with Cable and Wireless for delivering the xGSI, an extension to the Government secure intranet allowing for more highly classified networks to connect to it. The xGSI is a major breakthrough in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of how Departments and agencies can work together. From now on, it will be increasingly possible for the Government to conduct business over the Government secure intranet in more secure and cost-effective ways that will open up the possibility for greater electronic access to Government by both the public and the business community.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend, who is no doubt aware that the use of information technology in the public sector is a vast and still largely untapped means for the ordinary person to communicate with the Government and the public sector in general. Will he assure me that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that the ever-evolving technology is kept pace with and that the private sector—and not only Cable and Wireless—is appropriately engaged?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I introduced the Computer Industry Consultative Committee at a conference at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 2 November, to maintain the dialogue between the industry and ourselves. Through the central information technology unit and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, both of which operate within the Cabinet Office, we are in day-to-day contact with new developments in the industry.

Mr. Eric Forth: When this sexy network is completed, will the wires lead into the present office of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or into a new office of considerable dimensions and cost? Perhaps the Minister could share that information with us.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The right hon. Gentleman is more than a little out of date, as a question was answered on that very subject yesterday—Official Report, column 452. He demeans the serious question of how the Government communicate among themselves and with others. We seriously intend to take all measures necessary to ensure that we can do so effectively. I am sure that he is aware that the proposal to consolidate from seven buildings into one in Admiralty buildings preceded the advent of the

Labour Government. The difference between us and the previous Government is that we are actually doing something about it.

Constitutional Reform

Dr. Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Cabinet Office in respect of the Government's policies for constitutional reform. [58912]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Cabinet Office is responsible for ensuring the effective co-ordination and implementation of the Government's wide-ranging programme of constitutional reform. The Cabinet Office also has policy responsibility for advising Ministers on implementing the Government's proposals for reform of the House of Lords.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that answer. The Government are to be congratulated on their bold and ambitious programme of constitutional reform, soon happily to include the House of Lords, but is there not a difficulty, in that we have a big programme–11 Bills this year—but responsibility for it is spread among no fewer than eight Departments? Is it not time to make the Cabinet Office the Department of the constitution, driving the programme forward and making my right hon. Friend even more powerful than he is already?

Dr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the Government's fundamentally important constitutional reform programme, most of which, as he rightly said, has been delivered. The question whether to make the Cabinet Office and my role more powerful is not one on which I wish to comment, except to say that I believe we already have sufficient power and responsibility in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate a process that, of necessity—given devolution to Scotland and Wales and changes to the European Parliament—involves a significant number of Departments of State.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Minister confirm that the Bill to introduce a fairer system of voting for elections to the European Parliament is an integral and essential part of the Government's constitutional reform programme? Can he comment on the fact that the unelected seem to be prepared, at a late stage and after having taken no interest in the Bill during its Committee stage, to wreck the will of the elected?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can confirm both those points. It is the Government's intention to press ahead with our legislation in this area. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was clear that only a majority of hereditary peers prevented the will of the elected Chamber from prevailing in this matter. If Opposition Members want to assert the authority of the hereditary peerage over elected Members of the House of Commons, that is a battle that the Government are only too willing to fight.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The remit of the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee, on which Liberal Democrat Members sit, is to be expanded to encompass welfare reform, Europe, health and education. Liberal Democrat Members are to receive classified documents


that are not available to all Government Members. Do Liberal Democrats have to sign the Official Secrets Act? What penalty will apply if any of the Liberal Democrats leak that confidential information?

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend, in that what he said is not altogether accurate. There are simply to be discussions between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myself about the success of the co-operation between the Liberal Democrats and the Government in driving forward the shared constitutional agenda, to reflect on how the Joint Consultative Committee has operated in the past and to see whether it is possible to widen and/or deepen the process. Those decisions have not yet been taken. We have simply started the process, and one meeting has taken place.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's overall responsibility for House of Lords reform—he has just told us about that—will he give an assurance to the House that every stage of any Bill on that subject will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Dr. Cunningham: As I have said, the Cabinet Office has policy responsibility for advising Ministers on taking forward the matter. I did not claim to have overall responsibility for the subject. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the issue raised in his question is not a matter for me.

Ministerial Replies

3. Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on progress in improving the timeliness and quality of ministerial replies from all Government departments to requests from hon. Members. [58913]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Cabinet Office issued guidance last month to all Departments reminding them of the correct procedures to be followed when handling correspondence from hon. Members. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The guidance emphasises the importance of setting robust and challenging targets for replying to letters from hon. Members and reminds Departments of the need to ensure that all replies are of a consistently high standard.

Mr. Pickthall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a great deal still needs to be done? For example, only this Monday, I received a reply to a letter I sent to a Department on 20 March this year. As we inflict league tables on schools, would my hon. Friend consider league tables for Departments? Perhaps there could be performance-related pay, the idea of an advanced skills civil servant and, possibly, "headlamp" training for Ministers.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree that the treatment that my hon. Friend received is not up to expectations, but I hope that it was the exception, not the rule. We are mindful of the need to improve target times for the turnround of correspondence. If we were to introduce performance-related pay and league tables for the House and apply

them to the performance of the Opposition, they would end up paying money into the Exchequer and would face another relegation.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the Minister accept that many of my Buckingham constituents, whose courtesy is unsurpassed anywhere in the United Kingdom, are justifiably irritated when they have regularly to wait a minimum of two months—sometimes much longer—before they receive ministerial replies? Further to the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), does he agree that a reply, if it has taken at least two months to provide, should always be accompanied by an apology to the constituent from the Minister involved for its tardiness?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The guidance sets out clearly the responsibilities of Departments and Ministers. The guidance for the treatment of correspondence from members of the public is different from that for correspondence from hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that correspondence from hon. Members is often more substantive and it takes longer for Departments to reply, but that is no excuse for not making a speedy response.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Let me press the Minister on his point about a speedy response. In response to a request dealing with central standards and decisions in the House, a card was received stating that the matter had been passed to the Northern Ireland Office. Surely such a request should be answered by a Minister in the Department to which it was addressed, not passed all around the world to the Northern Ireland Office and back again.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it makes sense that correspondents should have one initial point of contact for any request, and an explanation of the reasons behind it. The guidance makes clear the good practice that should be followed, but doing so is the responsibility of the Department concerned.

Drugs Misuse

4. Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's priorities for reducing drugs misuse in 1998 and 1999. [58914]

Mr. Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement about the Government's policies to curb the use of illicit drugs. [58918]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government's anti-drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", published in April this year, established a framework for action over the next 10 years. On 1 September, I announced £217 million of additional funding over the next three years for anti-drugs activities, in line with the strategy. Our long-term targets are to reduce drug misuse by young people, to reduce drug-related crime, to increase participation in drug treatment and to reduce the availability of drugs. Specific short and medium-term


targets will be in place by March 1999. Locally, drug action teams are now drawing up action plans for 1999–2000.

Mr. Hughes: I welcome those four targets. Will the Minister dwell on the last of them and ensure that his discussions are widened to bring in the Department of Health, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment so that we have a culture that reduces the use of illegal drugs and the unnecessary use of all drugs, especially tobacco and alcohol?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for what we are trying to achieve in our new strategy, but my responsibilities focus on illegal use of drugs. I would not for one moment deny the importance of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, but they are not principally matters for me or for the Committee of Ministers, which I chair and which is doing just what he suggests in co-ordinating activity and action across Departments.

Mr. Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be head teachers who decide whether to exclude a pupil if that pupil is found in possession of drugs? Does he agree that the decision should reflect the individual circumstances of the case?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend simply reflects accurately what was said yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: In his role of co-ordinating policy across Government, will the Minister ensure that the clear, unequivocal message against the use of illegal drugs is consistent? Perhaps he might have a word with the Prime Minister to ensure that his right hon. Friend does not in future invite to Downing street personalities such as those from the pop music world who are known to take drugs and who set such a poor example to the young who idolise them.

Dr. Cunningham: I begin by congratulating the right hon. Lady—

Mrs. Winterton: Hon. Lady.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg her pardon.

Mrs. Winterton: Only a matter of time.

Dr. Cunningham: It is, indeed, only a matter of time. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new position on the Front Bench, and I thank her for her co-operation in taking a non-partisan approach to these issues. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment will also revert to taking that non-partisan approach on the illegal use of drugs. We are concerned with the impact of drugs on children and young people, and that simply is not a party political issue.
I am very pleased to be able to say that the Prime Minister's guest lists for 10 Downing street are not a matter for me and fall within none of my responsibilities.

Mrs. Irene Adams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to reduce use of

illegal drugs. Will he join me in congratulating the groups which have come together over the past three years in Paisley, North to fight the menace of drugs, and which, by doing so, have reduced violent crime by 36 per cent. over that period? Does my right hon. Friend agree that only when every section of the community comes together can that kind of progress be made?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree. We are willing and determined to work with local drugs action teams and other organisations, and I pay tribute to them. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the courageous stance that she has consistently taken in her constituency and in wider Scottish debates.

Civil Service (Independence)

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What new measures he plans to take to ensure the independence of the Civil Service. [58916]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The role of the civil service, as summarised in the "Civil Service Code", is to assist the duly constituted Government of the day with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity. We intend to bring forward legislation to give statutory force to the code as and when a suitable opportunity occurs. The "Ministerial Code" requires Ministers to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service.

Mr. Swayne: Does the Minister believe that the taxpayer is getting value for money for Alastair Campbell at £90,000 a year for a job which the Prime Minister describes as one of attacking the Opposition, and which the press are increasingly discovering to be one of concealing information, or providing misleading information?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is arrant nonsense to talk about the Government concealing information, certainly about the role of the chief press spokesman for the Prime Minister and those in similar posts. We have set out clearly and publicly to place presentation at the heart of Government. We have made it clear, and we make no apology for saying, that we shall drive our agenda forward from the centre in a way that will not compromise the political impartiality of civil servants. That is the role of special advisers.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after 18 years in which it was said that the only question asked of any civil servant was, "Is he one of us?", Labour Members not only expect the Government to maintain the independence of the civil service but strongly believe that that is the only way in which the interests of the public will be preserved?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I could not but agree with my hon. Friend. The use of special advisers in certain matters means that we avoid the dangers, which many people would allege that the previous Government strayed into, of politically compromising regular civil servants. We have no intention of doing that.

Sir George Young: Was not my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West


(Mr. Swayne) right to focus on the independence of the civil service and to draw attention to the injury done to that tradition of impartial civil servants by the Government doubling the number of special advisers and giving them pay increases way above the average of those given to other civil servants? If one sets that centralising tendency against all the others displayed by the Government, are we not right to conclude that the country needs not more central enforcement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but less?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we said at the outset that the Government would place the drive for implementing our programme at the very heart of Government. That is why, in July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reconfigured the Cabinet Office. We have also clearly and unequivocally said what role we expect special advisers to fulfil. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, who mentioned costs, that the average salary paid to a special adviser under the present Government is £1,000 less than the previous Government paid their special advisers.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Has my hon. Friend read the remarkable article by the Prime Minister in the new issue of Prospect magazine, in which he asserts the independence and integrity of the civil service and invites civil servants to think across Departments, learn from mistakes, extend boundaries rather than protect turf, and work closely with their European counterparts to advance the interests of the nation and the Government? Will my hon. Friend distribute copies of that article throughout the civil service to encourage initiative and independence and acknowledge its contribution to good government of our nation?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of the occasion on which that speech was made. I am sure that it was so inspirational that, if we made copies available, even Conservative Members would be moved to recognise the Prime Minister's commitment to joined-up government, better government and an efficient civil service. That commitment was certainly recognised by the members of the senior civil service who were present when the speech was made.

Economic and Monetary Union

Mr. John Wilkinson: What consultations he has held with Cabinet colleagues over the presentation of Government policy towards European economic and monetary union. [58919]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that textual criticism about whether the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said "if' or "when" is superfluous because they are united on the promotion of the euro, if on nothing else? Will he admit to the House that the real agenda for his party and his Government was spelled out in the document "The European Way", initiated during the Government's presidency of the European Union, which suggests a

minimum level of taxation for companies and savings, or, in other words, further imposts on British jobs that would further damage British competitiveness?

Dr. Cunningham: I can certainly confirm that the Government's position on the single currency has not changed. We wish it to be a success; we shall test our position on joining it on the basis of jobs, investment and what is good for British industry and the economy; and if the Government decide that we should join, we shall put that decision to Parliament and to the people of this country.
As for differences in respect of the document that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is not a Government-to-Government document, but a document from a party of European socialists who are working towards a manifesto. It does not commit the Government specifically to anything. It is a draft working document. It is not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer supports that work, because, as the hon. Gentleman accurately said, it commenced under my right hon. Friend's chairmanship during the British presidency of the European Union.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend know that, in my constituency, a large number of businesses are expressing a positive approach towards the prospect of Britain eventually joining the euro? They have changed their attitude over the past two or three years. Is he further aware that the co-operation on policy on a pan-European basis that is being pursued by the party of European Socialists is in marked contrast to the narrow-minded isolationism and nationalist xenophobia on the Conservative Benches?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. He highlights the disarray in the Conservative party on Britain's role in Europe, and the Conservatives' general disarray on policy. The Leader of the Opposition disagrees with the shadow Chancellor, who disagrees with the shadow spokespeople on education and health. It is a shambles.

Dr. Julian Lewis: When the Minister consults his colleagues on the matter, will he make a point of reminding them that repeated opinion polls have shown that only one third of the British people favour economic and monetary union, whereas well over half of them oppose it? Will he ensure that lashings of Government money are not expended on bogus arguments about the inevitability of something that a heavy majority of the British people rightly reject?

Dr. Cunningham: The Government will present our case for what is best for Britain to the British people in a consistent and wholly proper and prudent manner.

Executive Agencies

Mr. Jim Cousins: What new powers he is proposing for executive agencies. [58920]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The levels of delegation to agency chief executives under the next steps initiative are a matter for the Minister to whom he or she reports and will vary according to the size and function of the agency. The Government's general approach is to encourage initiative within a clear framework of targets and delegations set by the responsible Ministers.

Mr. Cousins: Will the programme for the modernisation of the state that the Government have in hand include allowing agencies to raise money sensibly, to act as beacon public enterprises and to be fairly and directly responsible to Parliament?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are looking at all available options with respect to the functions of the agencies. It is a matter for constant review. Recently, there was a conference of the chief executives of the agencies to explore some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Ecstasy

Ms Gisela Stuart: What consultation he has had with the anti-drugs co-ordinator on policies on the use of ecstasy. [58921]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government's anti-drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs Together to Build a Better Britain", outlines action to tackle all illegal drugs, including Ecstasy.

Ms Stuart: Given that evidence clearly suggests that young people respond to factual information when they consider the use of such drugs as Ecstasy, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the information on long-term brain damage associated with such drugs is made widely available not just to schools and children, but to their parents?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, we shall do that in the course of developing our 10-year strategy to tackle drug abuse in this country. Some of the £217 million in additional expenditure that I announced a few weeks ago will be targeted as my hon. Friend requests: it will be spent on further programmes of education, advice and information.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister accept that the Government's so-called anti-drugs strategy is failing? Will he not therefore set up a royal commission to examine the uses and effects of all illegal drugs?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not accept that—and neither does the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has said positive things about the Government's drugs strategy. If the Liberal Democrats cannot agree among themselves about their party's position on this subject, I cannot take their comments very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Valerie Davey: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Valerie Davey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the young people at a Bristol comprehensive school that was visited today by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have a clearer understanding of democracy and the importance of elections than do the anachronistic hereditary members of the House of Lords?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I fully agree. It is not merely the fact that the hereditary peers can decide policy in the House of Lords, but that the in-built Tory majority—three to one—in the other place means that, whatever the election result, the House of Lords can overturn the will of the House of Commons. That is not democracy.

Mr. William Hague: Of the 20 Labour Back Benchers who have spoken in the House and in Committee about the closed-list system for European elections, how many have spoken in favour of it?

The Prime Minister: Nobody voted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Nobody voted against it. In the House of Lords—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Just to correct what the Leader of the Opposition said this morning: although he tried to pretend that it was a broad-based alliance in the House of Lords, only 21 of the votes against the Government in the House of Lords last night were not cast by Tories or hereditaries. That shows them in their true colours.

Mr. Hague: The question was: how many Labour Back Benchers in the House have voted for closed lists? Why does the Prime Minister not ask one of the Chinese mystics to whom he is turning to teach him the ancient art of answering the question? The answer is that one Labour Back Bencher has spoken in favour of closed lists in the House—and even he spoke against them in Committee.
Labour Members are too embarrassed to speak in favour of a closed-list system, and the Prime Minister is too embarrassed to admit that they are embarrassed. Why does he not admit that the Cross-Bench peers voted against the Government last night, that the Law Lords voted against the Government, and that all the bishops who were present voted against the Government? Will the


Prime Minister acknowledge that all independent opinion is against a voting system that denies the voters the right to vote for the candidate that they prefer?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that at all. As I have just said, quite contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is telling people, only 21 of the votes upon which he relied last night were not cast by Tories or hereditaries. Supporting the Labour party's position were the Liberal Democrats, Cross Benchers—[Interruption.] So the Tory party is happy to rely on hereditary peers, but not on Liberal Democrats. Well, I prefer the support of people elected by the people, not hereditary peers—that is the answer. I think it fascinating that Conservative Members count the hereditary peers as more important than people who are democratically elected.
The system that we are proposing brings us into line with other European countries; it is our manifesto commitment. It is wrong to say that it does not list the candidates; the ballot paper lists parties and candidates. The system is used for France, Germany, Spain, Greece and Portugal. The only countries that use the Tories' system are Finland and Sweden. This, however, is no longer about the system; it is about the hereditary Tory peers in the House of Lords.
May I give the right hon. Gentleman some advice, as I know that he is in need of an image consultant at the moment? The right image for him is not to wrap himself in the ermine of hereditary peers.

Mr. Hague: It has come to something when the only independent support that the Prime Minister can find is from the Liberal party, which last week was not meant to be independent at all. It is funny that, when the Lords defeated the previous Government on their Criminal Justice Bill, the shadow Home Secretary of the time said:
This is a resounding victory for common sense.
Who was the shadow Home Secretary? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). There was no whining about an affront to democracy on that occasion, was there?
The Prime Minister is having difficulties with his questions today. He has his file with him; why does he not read out what his beloved Jenkins committee said about closed and open lists?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to do that—the right hon. Gentleman can read it out, and he can ask his own questions. Under the system that we are proposing, we will give away seats, both to Liberal Democrats and to the Tories—it is an act of generosity on our part. If he wants to end up using his hereditary majority in the House of Lords to overturn that, that is a matter for him. The Tories have the power to do that in the House of Lords—they can frustrate the will of the House of Commons. But if he does that, and we go back to the old system of first past the post—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—which I think some of my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has even managed to make me loved by the Labour party.
If we go back to the old system of first past the post, we will watch with delight as the right hon. Gentleman's candidates fight each other for selection. If he uses the House of Lords to overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons, and to overturn a system that

is used by two thirds of citizens in the European Union, that will show, first, that he has the strategic vision of a bat—because that will do his party more harm than any other party—and, secondly, that when it comes to democracy, the Tories prefer hereditary peers to the will of the people.

Mr. Hague: Is it not fascinating that the Prime Minister has so few arguments to advance his case? I am so sorry that he cannot read from the Jenkins report—Lord Jenkins will be most put out—but fortunately, I have a copy: never travel without it. Lord Jenkins says:
it is crucial that the voters' right to express their view of individual candidates should be maintained … For this reason we greatly prefer an open list, to a closed party list".
So every independent person can see what the Prime Minister cannot see—that the real affront to democracy is his plan to deny the voters the right to vote for a candidate whom they prefer. Is he not overriding every word of caution and every constitutional check and balance to expand the power of his clique of cronies at the expense of the power of the people?

The Prime Minister: First, Lord Jenkins voted with us rather than with the Conservatives. Secondly, what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that there is no argument in favour of the list system that we are putting forward. As I have pointed out, the vast majority of people in the European Union vote according to the system that we are putting forward. It is the system that is used by most large countries. Under the system that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward, a candidate with fewer votes could get elected over someone with more votes, which is plainly absurd.
In any event, the right hon. Gentleman has never dealt with the essential point: is the will of the House of Commons the will that should be upheld, or is it the will of the Tory hereditary peers? Perhaps he can get up and admit that it is only with Tory hereditary peers that he comes anywhere near winning this vote. That is the real issue: Conservatives' support of hereditary peers, or our support for an elected House of Commons.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows that that is not the case. If he looks at the figures that he has in front of him, he will see that 47 Cross-Bench peers voted with the Opposition and 12 with the Government. The three bishops voted with the Opposition and not with the Government. Four Law Lords and ex-Law Lords voted with the Opposition and not with the Government. If those people had voted the other way round, the Government would have been successful. The reason why the Prime Minister lost in the House of Lords is that he lost the argument—and he has lost the argument in the House of Commons as well.

The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Without Tory hereditary peers, he would have come nowhere near winning the vote. The truth is that he wins only through Tory hereditary peers. What he has done today is to decide not merely against his own party's interest, but to use Tory hereditary peers to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. That is his choice, and he will live with its consequences.

Dr. Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I was not sent here by the voters of Norwich, North to be dictated to by a bunch of in-bred, homozygous recessives.


It is estimated that one in two people in this country will contract cancer by 2010. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to tackle its causes—asbestos, tobacco and other agents? Does he further agree that the inequalities throughout this country in care and in the treatment and detection of cancers are not consistent with the modern society that we are going to construct? Does he now agree that the time for Britain against cancer has come, and that part of the success story in the United States—a national cancer institute—might be an element of our plan?

The Prime Minister: It may be part of our plan, but already, as my hon. Friend will know, we are putting some £20 billion into the health service—that is extra—from next April; that is opposed, of course, by the Conservative party. The Government have guaranteed that everyone with suspected cancer will be seen by a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner referring them as an urgent case, so we are not just putting that extra money in: we are directing some of those extra resources to cancer.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done in campaigning on the issue. We are also going to ensure, of course, through the £2.5 billion hospital-building programme, that we get the right buildings and infrastructure as well.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful for that expression of support from both sides—truly non-tribal.
As we are discussing actions in Committee, is the Prime Minister aware that, when open lists in the European elections were debated in Committee in the House of Lords, the Conservatives refused to vote in favour of them and the Conservative spokesman claimed that open lists were "manifestly unfair"? Is this not absolutely clearly an example of extraordinary opportunism and double standards on the part of the Conservative party? Worse, is there not now a risk that the actions of the hereditary peers will deny the voters of Britain a fair electoral system for the European elections—a system for which two thirds of them voted in last year's general election?

The Prime Minister: Of course that is true. It is a manifesto commitment on the part of the Government that is being frustrated.
I have just turned up the figures relating to hereditary peers. The largest single group voting with the Conservatives were hereditary peers, who made up just over half the vote. As I have said, if we put Tories and hereditary peers together, we find that there were only 21 other votes. Talk of the great so-called cross-party and Cross-Bench alliance is absolute and utter nonsense.
What the right hon. Gentleman says is true: the system represents a manifesto commitment. Under the system that we propose, the ballot paper will list parties and candidates, so it is nonsense to suggest that voters will not know which group of people they are voting for. Our system would bring us into line with the majority view in the rest of the European Union—but the Opposition do

not care about the manifesto commitment; they are more interested in using hereditary peers to frustrate the will of this place.

Mr. Ashdown: So does the Prime Minister agree that the proper constitutional process now would be for both Houses to pass the European Parliamentary Elections Bill today, on the basis that the Government will ensure that the review that they have already promised will take place after next year's elections will be conducted by an independent body such as the electoral commission proposed by Lord Neill? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order. Three Members, whom I could name, are shouting their heads off. It must stop.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Government ensure that the review will be conducted not by the Government, but by an independent body such as the electoral commission proposed by Lord Neill and supported by the Conservative party, which will then be able to recommend appropriate improvements and a more open procedure for subsequent elections?

The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly good suggestion. We have made it clear throughout that we are happy to arrange an independent review. The suggestion is intelligent, but we have an Opposition who are not interested in the issue at all. What they are interested in doing is using the issue to make a point of their own about the House of Lords. I happen to think that they are not making a very sensible point. As I have said, under the system that we propose ours will be the party that gives up seats. I think the Conservatives will find that their short-term diddling will lead to quite a long-term problem for them.

Mr. Chris Mullin: And now for something completely different.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the board of Vaux, which employs 670 people in Sunderland and a couple of hundred in Sheffield, is putting its brewing interests on the market? Although the two companies concerned are profitable, and although Vaux has received a bid from its own management to run the companies as a going concern, it is contemplating selling them to one of its rivals, which will close them down, sack the work force and thereby eliminate a competitor. I know that we are all supposed to believe in market forces nowadays, but does my right hon. Friend agree that such action would represent the unacceptable face of capitalism?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and the fact that people are worried about their jobs. I am sure that those people will take account of my hon. Friend's powerful case. As he knows, the decision is not one for Government, but I am aware that he has made his case to those concerned, and I hope that they will listen carefully.

Mr. David Amess: How many times must the Paymaster General fail to register his financial interests before the Prime Minister has the courage to sack him from the Government?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will make his statement after


Question Time. I hope that the House will allow him to do so. The Committee has made findings, to which he will respond. He should be left to respond to those findings. As my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, this refers to a time before he was a Minister. He accepts that it was an oversight on his part, and I think that the House should listen carefully to what he has to say.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the Prime Minister—in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the latest literacy and numeracy initiatives—urge him and all Departments to press ahead with expenditure in areas that will promote social inclusion? Will he congratulate my own borough of Blackpool on appointing a reader in residence in their schools, to promote reading among parents and children? Will the Prime Minister emphasise again to the House that such actions demonstrate the Government's commitment to public expenditure and to social inclusion, as opposed to the social exclusion practised by the House of Lords?

The Prime Minister: There are three things that we are doing for people in the position of my hon. Friend's constituents. We are putting £19 billion extra into education next year; ensuring that there is the new deal for young unemployed and long-term unemployed—our action has resulted in youth unemployment for over six months being cut by between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent.; and introducing the working families tax credit, which will improve the earnings of low income families. The three measures will help constituents—such as those of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members—throughout the land. All three measures are opposed by today's Conservative party, and nothing could better demonstrate the difference between us.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Is the Prime Minister now aware that his continued support for the closed-list system is seen by so many as one more example of his contempt for the democratic process and for the electors of the United Kingdom, and as further evidence of the Government's desire to control, control and control?

The Prime Minister: On a point of fact, all the systems that have been discussed—all of them—are list systems that parties put into effect. As I said, the list system that we are proposing is used by most of the large countries in the European Union. The idea that we are proposing something that has never been heard of before is therefore absurd. The system was, of course, pioneered in the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland, by the Conservative party.
Surely the democratic monstrosity is not the House of Commons deciding that one variant of the PR system is the best, but the Conservative party using its permanent in-built majority of Conservative hereditary peers—elected by no one and accountable to no one—to overturn the democratic majority in the House. That is how the vast majority of people will see it.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement last week of £1.24 billion extra for police forces has been received with acclamation by both police and public? Is he aware

that there is a growing appreciation among the British people of the fact that our Labour Government are determined to defeat crime at every possible opportunity, reinforcing once again the public's confidence in Labour's tough policies on crime?
May I also tell my right hon. Friend that certain chief constables are essentially scaremongering about their budgets? If the chief constable of Manchester is right in prophesying that his police authority's budget—which he has not yet received—will be short to the tune of £18 million, 224 police support jobs will have to go. Would it not be complete folly if we failed to find a few million extra quid to avoid major damage to our police force, so that we do not undermine our successful policies in dealing with crime?

The Prime Minister: There is a lot of negotiation at about this time of year on budgets. However, no allocations have yet finally been made. We are quite considerably increasing the police budget. My hon. Friend drew attention also to policies on law and order, particularly those on youth justice and crime and disorder. This Government, unlike the previous one, are not only being tough on crime but—through the new deal—tackling the underlying causes of crime. It is important to get both parts of that equation right.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If the Prime Minister is serious about securing economic stability, does he accept that it requires not just an independent Bank of England, but a strategy for stabilising exchange rates and bringing our interest rates closer into line with already low European rates? Is not that failure of policy the reason why today's Treasury survey of independent economic forecasts shows that manufacturing industry is predicted to decline sharply next year, contrary to the Chancellor's forecasts? Is he now so confident that manufacturing industry will avoid recession in 1999?

The Prime Minister: We have made it clear—indeed, I made it clear a couple of days ago—that industry and jobs face a tougher time in the next year. The question is: what is the right way to get through this? We believe that Bank of England independence and keeping tight control of fiscal policy—which we have done, slashing the enormous budget deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives—are the right things to do. If we combine them with measures to improve working conditions for people, such as the working families tax credit and the new deal, on which the OECD report today specifically congratulates us, we have the best chance of weathering the storm. The difference between us and the Liberal Democrats is that, although they want interest rates down, they want spending massively increased.

Mr. Bruce: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but on any basis they do. It is important that we get the right mix of monetary and fiscal policy. I believe that we have done that. That is why long-term interest rates are at their lowest for more than 30 years. Holding our nerve and staying firm on the policies that we have set out provides the best chance for this country to come through in the next 12 months.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am a firm supporter of the first-past-the-post system, and am


utterly delighted that the suicide club on the Conservative Front Bench and their cronies along the Corridor are determined to maximise the number of Labour Members of the European Parliament and minimise the number of Tory MEPs. As attempts are being made to label my right hon. Friend a control freak—something that I have been told to say is completely alien to his nature—does it not strike him as bizarre that the unelected Chamber along the Corridor is trying to block his attempts to minimise the number of Labour MEPs who could be elected on a first-past-the-post system, thereby seeking to disperse power, authority and representation away from his Front Bench?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes an immensely persuasive case. Our proposal means that we would give away seats in the European elections next year. If the Conservatives wish to take us down another route, that is a matter for them. However, as my right hon. Friend implies, it is wrong for them to use hereditary Conservative peers to do so.

Mr. Edward Davey: On Monday, the Prime Minister told the City that he found economic stability sexy. Does he realise that British business would find him rather more sexy if he stopped flirting with Europe and made up his mind on the euro? When will the Prime Minister stop teasing British firms with his ifs and his buts, commit himself—and make a date?

The Prime Minister: I believe in a sustained period of wooing before relationships are entered into. What business wants above all is to know that the Government are going to hold to Bank of England independence and tight fiscal policy, making the additional investment in infrastructure, schools and hospitals next year.
In the past few weeks the Conservatives have provided the country with a simple choice. They would scrap Bank of England independence, they oppose our investment in

schools and hospitals next year, they would scrap the working families tax credit and they would scrap the new deal. That is their decision. Business has a clear choice. And, of course, the Conservatives would rule out the euro for—is it two Parliaments or 10 years?

Mr. Eric Forth: Longer.

The Prime Minister: I cannot wait for the Euro-selection contests to begin in the Tory party.
There is a simple choice, and business knows it. It now has a clear choice between this Government, who are pursuing the right policies for long-term stability, and a Conservative party that would return us to boom and bust.

Ms Debra Shipley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government have brought in good working practice such as the minimum wage and the working time directive, and are also striving for ethical trade? Is he aware of the fair trade initiative, which ensures that people in other countries get a decent wage and decent working conditions as they produce the products for us to consume here? Does he welcome the fact that many people in my constituency, including societies, community groups, Churches, schools and even my researchers, have all decided to choose fair trade products?

The Prime Minister: The principles behind the fair trade initiative are admirable, although as a Government we must be careful not to do anything that would inhibit free trade. I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend about the minimum wage. Again, that represents a clear difference between ourselves and the Conservative party. We believe in minimum standards in the workplace, and think them fully consistent with a competitive economy; whereas the Conservatives oppose minimum standards such as the minimum wage. Workers will go into the next election knowing that, if they vote Conservative, the minimum wage will be withdrawn from them.

Bereavement Benefits

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the next stage of our welfare reform programme.
We have already launched the new deal, the biggest ever investment by Government in jobs and training. We have begun to tackle child poverty, with the biggest ever rise in child benefit. We have introduced a national child care strategy. We are modernising our tax and benefits system to make work pay, with a new working families tax credit, which will benefit up to 1.5 million people, underpinned by the national minimum wage.
Three weeks ago, I set out wide-ranging reforms to disability benefits, giving more help for severely disabled people and those disabled early in life. We are modernising the system to ensure that benefits go to those for whom they were intended. All these reforms are driven by our central objective—work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
Today I am publishing a consultation paper on our proposals for the reform of bereavement benefits paid to people of working age. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the Vote Office. The reforms apply only to people of working age who lose their husbands or wives. Women already widowed, widows over state pension age, and war widows will continue to get the support that we give them now. They will not be affected by the reforms that I set out today.
My announcement is one in a series of long-term reforms that will form the basis of legislation at the earliest opportunity. However, today's proposals will not be introduced before April 2001, so as to allow time for implementation.
The system of bereavement benefits that we inherited is out of date. When it was introduced 50 years ago, most women did not work, certainly not after marriage. Today, seven out of 10 married women work—almost as many as the eight out of 10 married men who work. Today, 1.5 million women benefit from their late husband's pensions, compared with the 100,000 who did so 50 years ago. About 40 per cent. of the women currently getting widows benefit are in the top half of the income bracket. The world has changed, and the benefits system needs to reflect those changes.
The system also fails on four specific counts. First, it is unfair to men: 15,000 husbands bereaved each year get no help at all. That unfairness cannot continue, and it is already being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights—so doing nothing, as some urge, is not an option. Secondly, the system does not provide enough help with the immediate costs of bereavement, such as unpaid bills or funeral costs. Thirdly, money often goes to those who have the least need of it. Widows without children who have substantial incomes can get benefits for years, but a man—who may have growing children and modest means—gets nothing at all. Finally, the present system fails to support the poorest mothers on income support. Widows who have children to care for lose their benefit pound for pound, and so get no financial gain from their widows benefit.
The reforms that I am announcing today will change all that. Our reforms will, for the first time, get help to men who lose their wives, and on an equal footing with widows. They will provide extra financial help with immediate needs, such as funeral expenses.
We will continue to help those older people without children during the period immediately after bereavement and, as with our other reforms, our priority is to provide security for families with children, and to get the greatest help to the poorest. Our proposals will ensure the security of families with children, and we will do more for the poorest families and their children.
First, I can announce today that men who lose their wives will get help on the same basis as women who lose their husbands. We will go further—once the reforms are introduced, they will apply not only to newly bereaved widowers, but to those husbands with children already widowed. For the first time, we will be providing security for around 20,000 men and their children.
Secondly, I wish to refer to immediate help on bereavement. The loss of a husband or wife is traumatic, and a time of great need and anxiety. We recognise the need for immediate financial help. Indeed, it is one of the strengths of the current system that, on bereavement, a widow gets a £1,000 lump sum within four days. In my view, that payment is no longer high enough—the amount has not changed in 10 years—so, today, I can announce that we are doubling the lump sum cash payment to £2,000. We want to give more help with a range of costs, such as bills or the cost of a funeral.
Thirdly, we want to ensure that we get help to those who need it most. Today, long-term widows benefits may go to many who do not need them because they do not have the extra costs of bringing up children, or because they have good incomes from jobs, pensions or insurance. Some argue that those are grounds for abolishing the benefit completely, but we do not believe that that would be right. We recognise that financial support is needed in the period immediately after bereavement, so we will continue to provide a financial breathing space for bereaved spouses—aged 45 and over—who do not have dependent children by paying a weekly benefit, worth up to £64.70. The new bereavement allowance will be paid for six months only-providing transitional support at a time of particular need.
We also recognise that, for the generation of widows and widowers aged 55 or over at the time when the changes are introduced, special arrangements will be needed because it could be difficult for them to make new plans. I can announce today that anyone from that generation who qualifies for income support and who is widowed in the five years after the changes are introduced will get support worth the same amount as the current widows pension.
Fourthly, we are determined to ensure that the greatest help goes to those with greatest needs. Our reforms will continue to provide long-term financial help to bereaved parents with children. I can confirm that bereaved husbands and wives will continue to get a weekly benefit—currently worth, on average, £85—payable until their youngest dependent child leaves full-time further education. As with our other proposals, that help goes to both men and women who lose their spouse. However, we want to go further. We are determined to do more to


help people who need help most, and we will ensure that the system helps the poorest widows and widowers, and their children.
Today, I can announce that the poorest bereaved parents who are on income-related benefits and getting bereavement benefits will gain additional cash help worth up to an extra £10 a week—providing the greatest help to those with greatest needs. The reforms modernise the benefit, treat men and women equally, give immediate help where it is needed, give more help to the poorest and do not affect existing widows.
As with the reforms that I announced three weeks ago, the structural changes will deliver significant savings, of around £500 million in the long run. However, we will do so by ensuring that the greatest help goes to those with greatest needs, and, in the short term, we are spending £140 million more to meet real need. As society gets wealthier, the amount that we spend on the most vulnerable should increase—but benefits must go to those who need them most. We must give more help to those in greatest need. We are planning now for the needs of the future, to ensure that the system is affordable, fair and effective.
Some people will urge us to do nothing, and, yes, turning our backs on the failure of the current system would have been the easy option. However, the real scandal would be for a Government committed to social justice to ignore the unfairness, to ignore the needs of children and to do nothing to help those in greatest need.
These are fair reforms, which provide real security and real help at a time of real need for bereaved husbands and wives and their children. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I must thank the Secretary of State for giving me a copy of his statement in advance. It contains some good and some bad proposals, and I shall deal with those fairly quickly.
Obviously, it is the Government's right and responsibility to reform the benefit. They are right: things have changed. The way in which people live their lives is changing all the time. No benefit is fixed in concrete and should stay the same for ever—that is an agreed principle. Therefore, the Government are right to consider this benefit. There is no question about that.
Clearly, the question is how the Government go about it. Who will be the winners and the losers? What will be the long-term prospects for those who would, or should, be dependent on assistance and support as a result of national insurance contributions made, in many cases, by husbands but now, obviously, by wives?
When we introduced the lump sum concept in the mid-1980s, it was the right thing to do. By increasing it—that is welcome—the Secretary of State has agreed that that is the right principle. It goes to people at the moment when they most need it, and does not depend on their filling out huge forms and getting into difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore right to focus on that; it is welcome.
Clearly, the issue of men being dependent on the benefit was relevant because of the court case. It was a necessary change. The Government have taken the view that the case will be won, and whether they are being a

little previous is not the point of this debate. The fact is that they have taken that view, and there is no point in discussing it further.
However, the Government must answer some other major questions. First, the Secretary of State talked about the average £85. Will he break that figure down? He said that the benefit was currently worth, on average, £85. Does that mean that the future commitment is to retain it at that purchasing power? How will he calculate that in future? Obviously, the £85 is a mix of what is there at the moment, but why not specify how it is broken down and the Government's commitment for the future?
I must criticise the Government on their handling of the second issue, as it concerns me that they have put the cart before the horse. Surely the issue is linked inextricably with pension reform. Everything that the Secretary of State has said puts the burden on those in work to provide not merely for their own retirement, but for their dependants and spouses. He is suggesting that that will, and should, happen; yet we have heard nothing in 18 months from the Government about pension reform, other than leaks and suggestions in the papers that they are eroding the pension. They have said a little about what they may do, but there has been no great focus on the subject. So many of them—[Interruption.]
It is all very well for those on the Treasury Bench to snigger. The fact is that many people outside this place who have listened to the statement will be concerned about what means testing means to them and how they can provide security for their families when they have no idea what framework the Government propose for pensions. The Government must accelerate that process; otherwise, people will remain in fear and will worry about what will happen to them.
The second part of the statement was the most critical. This Government seem to be unable to admit that they are about getting rid of the contributory principle. That is what this is all about. They do it by stealth. Each time the Secretary of State produces another proposal, the ending of the contributory principle lies at its heart.
The Secretary of State is being very clever in talking about widows pensions. He says that, after the six-month transitional period, those on income support will continue to receive the benefit for five years. However, those who are not on income support clearly will not receive it. Those on the margins, with small savings, will fall off.
The Secretary of State admits that he has an obligation to those who pay national insurance, but he limits that obligation to five years and to those who are on income support. He is saying that the contributory principle is no longer relevant and will be ended. People outside the House who hear that should remember that the Government are hellbent on completely changing their position.
If the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to means-test the basic state pension after the next election, they should say so. They should say: "The contributory principle is over. We shall now have a means-tested set of benefits." That is what the statement suggests—it proposes taxed and means-tested transitional relief.
The proposals contain an absurdity. The Government will means-test those on upper incomes for this benefit, but the working families tax credit—which the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon.


Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who is chirping away on the Treasury Bench, admitted would create no jobs—will be paid to people with incomes as high as £38,000 year. The Government seem to be unable to settle that conflict. They means-test to reduce some benefits, whereas they scatter money around and waste it on other benefits, increasing expenditure by £1.5 billion.
Reform of the benefit is necessary, but this reform is driven by a Government who are in desperate need of short-term savings. They are scraping away, saying, "We've got to find some way to save the money." The Secretary of State is, in no small measure, robbing Pauline to help Paul.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the fact that I gave him a copy of the statement, but I had hoped that he would read it. The proposals contain no short-term savings, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has pointed out. As I said in the statement, we are spending more in the short term to meet immediate need. The £500 million savings will be in the long term—like the measures that I announced some three weeks ago, these proposals represent major structural changes to the benefits system, which will enable us to plan for the future.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that the lump sum will be increased, which most people recognise will meet an immediate need. He said that we were right to extend the benefits to men and women, although he thought that we were premature in taking account of the case that is before the European Court. I take a slightly different view: I believe that it is unfair to treat men and women differently, which is why I wanted to put right that wrong.
If the best that the hon. Gentleman can say is that he is against my announcement because it did not deal with pensions, I shall have to accept it. I shall make a separate statement on pensions when the Government publish their proposals, as we have promised. Today's announcement was about widows benefits.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the make-up of the £85 a week. That figure—the widows maintenance allowance—will depend on how many children a widow has. There is an allowance of £9.90 for the first child and £11.30 for the second. There is also a state earnings-related pension scheme element. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we will keep the figure under review. As he should know, all benefit figures are kept under review.
The contributory principle is worthy of discussion, although perhaps not in these exchanges. Successive Governments have changed the conditions attached to the contributory principle. Indeed, the previous Government did so on several occasions—most recently in 1996, when the entitlement to unemployment benefit was reduced from a year to six months. We are in many respects increasing the benefits available—we are extending benefits to men, and we are increasing the lump sum.
Over the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members have called for welfare reform. However, whenever any reform is suggested, they say: "Welfare reform, yes, but not this." They will not address themselves to the fact that there are many problems with the current benefits system and that not least among them

is the problem that we are paying benefits to people who do not need them and not doing enough for people who do. That in itself is a case for reform, and that reform deserves support.
Conservative Members must do a little bit better than merely apologising for cutting the married persons tax allowance—which is their policy on the family—and proposing a transferable tax allowance which would cost £4 billion every year; they cannot tell us how they would fund it.

Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State proposing that the existing package of benefits for widows should be extended to widowers? If so, how many widowers and how many women will lose benefit when the reforms come into force, and how many people will be pushed on to means tests?

Mr. Darling: No, we are not proposing to apply the existing benefits regime to men. That would cost about £250 million a year and could not be justified. We are continuing the system of support for mothers, and now fathers, with young children, which is entirely justified, and ensuring that the allowance payable to people without children runs for six months only. That is a major change from the present scheme. We cannot justify spending money on those who do not need it while many people who need help are not supported.
I know my right hon. Friend's view on income support—he is against means-testing—but income support and means-testing are ways of ensuring that we get the help to those who need it most, and that is an extremely important safeguard as a fundamental part of the structure of the benefit system. Our reforms for widows benefits overall will ensure that we give help where it is needed.
On my right hon. Friend's detailed points, I sent him a copy of the consultation document, and he ought by now to have received it.

Mr. David Rendel: I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me a chance to read his statement before he delivered it. I have both read it and listened to him delivering it, so I hope that I know what is in it. The Liberal Democrats welcome the doubling of the lump sum but, given the Secretary of State's cogent arguments for it, should it not be done straight away? It will be given universal acclaim and could probably be implemented by regulation rather than by primary legislation. If the costs are already much greater than £1,000, we could surely do something about that immediately.
We also welcome the reform to make all the payments payable to men who lose their wives as well as to wives who lose their husbands. That is clearly right, as I have said to the Secretary of State before, and I am glad that he has acknowledged that in his statement. Is the new bereavement allowance to have an earnings-related element, as I believe the current widows pensions do?
Is not six months far too short a time for the bereavement allowance to run? The Secretary of State will surely know that, when people lose their spouses in middle age, it can take them months to get over it or even to start thinking straight again about their future. His comments about those who will be over 55 in 2001


suggest that such people may take much longer than six months to start making new plans. Would it not be sensible for the bereavement allowance to last some years rather than some months?

Mr. Darling: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The period for which an allowance should run is always a matter of judgment. We took the view that six months would be a suitable period to allow someone to adapt to changed circumstances. Almost as many women work as men; the situation is now very different from 50 years ago, when very few women worked after marriage. All the experience shows that women wanting to return to work want to do so rather sooner than after a period of several years.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the lump sum cannot be introduced now. The proposals are part of a package. Following an exchange that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues had with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time, I must tell the Liberal Democrats that, at some point, they have to square up to the fact that all these things have to be paid for. This is a coherent package of reform.
I am grateful for the general welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given to a number of the specific proposals. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be an earnings-related element. I was not quite sure exactly what he was getting at. The widows payment is taxable now. If he is concerned about the state earnings-related pension scheme, he will see that the details are spelled out in the consultation paper. However, SERPS continues for the parents allowance.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the Government's search for a modern approach to this important issue on widows, widowers and bereavement. I welcome particularly those parts of the package that do not rely on means-testing. There are some useful ideas about targeting resources without recourse to the means test.
I put it to the Secretary of State that, over the past 20 years, a number of ad hoc policy reforms have touched on the national insurance system, yet, paradoxically, we have never had a serious debate about the future of national insurance and the contributory principle in this country. We have to find a means of holding that serious debate about a national insurance system based on the principle that people contribute to the community chest when they can, and draw out, as of right, when they need to do so. Given the new issues such as how we fund long-term care and perhaps pay for parental leave, surely we need a debate to see whether a renaissance of the social insurance principle could be the future of social security if we are to avoid the increasing move towards the nastiness and division of the means test.

Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows more than most, the benefits system in this country is complex. The contributory system sits alongside means-tested payments for extra costs and so on. I suspect that most people going along to the Benefits Agency will ask not about the origin of the payment but about how much they will get and the conditions of entitlement. I agree that this matter ought to be debated and I know that a number of hon. Members would like such a debate. By good luck, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting next to me, and

she will no doubt be pencilling in a date as we speak. It is a serious debate in which I intend to engage before too long.
The Government approach this as a matter of principle. In general terms, first, we want to ensure that we encourage all those who can work to do so and, secondly, we want to provide security for those who cannot. In each case, particularly where we want to provide greater security, we must ask ourselves how we can best get money to those who need it most. This afternoon's announcement goes a long way to meeting some of the gaps in need that have existed before. I believe that income-related benefits will remain part of the system for some time to come. They are important, particularly for the low-paid. I shall be happy to have a general debate; I am sure that some hon. Members cannot wait, but I suspect that others possibly can.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Secretary of State explain why it is fair to take away widows benefit from widows without dependent children when they have incredibly modest means but not sufficiently modest to be able to qualify for income support while, at the same time—if I understand the Secretary of States's announcement—proposing to give benefit to other widows and widowers who may have been left a substantial amount by their dead spouse?

Mr. Darling: My proposal is that we continue to help the surviving parent and children. What is more, we want to extend that help to men with young children who do not get a penny under the present system. For those without children, the widow and widowers pension should be payable for a transitional period of six months because we believe that that is a reasonable time to adjust. I repeat my earlier point that I find it difficult to justify the current situation where, in many cases, we are paying benefit for years to people who do not need it while not doing nearly enough for others, particularly those with young children. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support that, rather than defending the status quo, which most people find it difficult to defend.

Audrey Wise: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd for the Tories to complain about means-testing, which is their favourite tool? By the same token, we have to be cautious about making it a tool of ours. I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the extension of the principle of benefits to widowers for the first time, which is a good move. However, I wish to express my concern and ask for more information about the position of older widows. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that many women now work, but he did not mention that they are still congregated in low-paid, temporary or part-time work or that the gender gap in wages is widening. Will he give more thought to, and explain, the plight in which older widows may be left by his proposals?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for many of the proposals. Low wages for women generally, and older women in particular, will be helped by the minimum wage. It is more difficult to take account of women aged 55 and older when changing the structure of the system, but we want to ensure that those on income support are no worse off after the changes.


In other words, we wish to safeguard the position of that older generation of women who are probably less likely to be in work than younger women because of the changes in working habits.
My hon. Friend makes a good point about means-testing. I am not sure whether the Conservatives have now come out against means-testing as part of their strategy, but we will wait and see. Today, we have introduced a disregard of £10 for the poorest widows and widowers to ensure that they get a benefit from the widows and widowers payments that they do not currently get. That is a similar move to ones that we have made for other benefits, and it means that the poorest will keep the benefit of £10 a week. That will be welcome.

Mr. Howard Flight: May I seek the Minister's confirmation? In the simplest terms, he appeared to say that the widows pension will be abolished for those under 45, whether men or women, if they are widowed in the future; there will be a more generous payment on bereavement; there will be a payment for six months; and otherwise they will need to rely on income support and other child allowances. That seemed to be the essence of his statement.
The role of men and women in our society may have more overlap than before, and both may work, but there are still significant differences. Because women generally have a lower earning power and many break their careers to have families, a system of benefits for those who are widowed that is precisely equal for men and women is not entirely suitable. Indeed, most women will feel that it is unfair, given the patterns of employment and different responsibilities of men and women.

Mr. Darling: I am becoming increasingly puzzled about the Conservatives' position on these matters. Over the years, patterns have changed and the work force is now almost half made up of women, thanks in many ways to the reforms that we are introducing. The difficulties of low pay are being addressed, and many women have successful careers and have chosen to work throughout their lives. The benefits system must reflect that. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the system was introduced in the 1940s, when most women did not work. When Beveridge drew up the plan, it was never the intention that people should remain on benefit when they could be working.
I believe strongly that the benefits system must change to take account of completely different economic and social circumstances. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument; he seems on the one hand to argue for the status quo, but on the other to display a new-found sympathy for the low-paid. I cannot understand such an attitude from the Conservative party, which has spent a lifetime fostering lack of such sympathy.

Mr. Jim Cousins: My right hon. Friend knows that I represent part of north-east England where working class men die younger than in any other part of England. Is he telling me that, as a result of the changes that he proposes, a woman partner of one of those working men who is left a small quantity of savings or a small works pension that still accrues to them after her husband's working life will be completely

excluded from all long-term bereavement benefits unless her savings and income are reduced to the bare income support level? If he is saying that, I urge him to think again.

Mr. Darling: I am not saying that. All bereaved husbands or wives will be entitled to an allowance for the six-month period. Those with children will receive the allowance for a lot longer. Those who are dependent on or entitled to benefits will receive them. My hon. Friend must face the fact that nearly 40 per cent. of women who currently receive the benefit are in the top half of the income bracket. Others are working and earning quite good wages. I am determined to ensure that bereavement benefits bring help to those who most need it. That is what the reforms are designed to do.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Secretary of State say at what level of earnings a widow or a widower who has children will begin to lose benefit under his new proposals?

Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult the various income support tables that we publish each year, he will be able to find that level easily.

Mr. Terry Rooney: I welcome the statement, particularly the £10 disregard on income support and the doubling of the lump sum. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to reports, the new bereavement allowance will not be means-tested? Will he confirm, too, that the generous current contributing conditions for the lump sum will remain the same?

Mr. Darling: The contributory conditions will not be affected, and the benefit will not be means-tested.

Mr. Chris Pond: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us share his puzzlement that the Opposition now oppose means testing, and champion the national insurance principle? Does he recall that, when the previous Government made the change from unemployment benefit to jobseeker's allowance—a major breach of the national insurance principle—they changed the signing-on rules so that those who had previously not worked for 10 years and were aged 50 or over would not have to sign on, but those in that position after 1996 would have to do so? Can he clarify whether those bereaved in later life will be required to sign on?

Mr. Darling: It is the case that, as a result of reforms introduced by the Conservatives, widows had to sign on a week after losing their husbands. As a result of my proposals, at their introduction women aged over 55 will not have to sign on for work, because I do not think it reasonable that they should have to do so.

Mr. Edward Garnier: May I refer briefly to a constituency case that touches on the Secretary of State's statement? A woman in my constituency was widowed about four weeks ago. She is in her mid-50s, and her husband was in his late 50s. She receives about £60 a week in bereavement allowance, and she works eight hours a week as a cleaner. She would like to work more to supplement her diminished income, but fears that she cannot do so because her widows allowance will be


reduced for every hour she works or every pound she earns. Is that correct; if it is, does the Secretary of State's statement remedy her situation?

Mr. Darling: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to write to me, I will look into that case. If the situation is as he described, it occurs under the system that we inherited. His constituent ought to be receiving £64 a week, which is a taxable benefit, and it is not clear how she is losing the benefit to which he referred, but I will look into the case if he writes to me.

Mr. Julian Brazier: After the complexities of the transitional period are out of the way, how many more people than at present does the Secretary of State estimate will face means tests?

Mr. Darling: Again, Conservative Members are expressing concerns about the means test, which many Labour Members find extraordinary. Using a variety of measures, such as the new deal and the single gateway, we are ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to work rather than be reliant on benefits. I repeat my earlier point that many women work at present and many more are choosing to work, and we propose to make it easier for them to do so.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether existing widows will benefit from the proposals? I had a telephone call two weeks ago from a constituent who is on benefits because he had been caring for his wife. She died, and he had a visit from the Benefits Agency for the sole purpose of tearing up her benefit books. He asked me angrily, "How can I pay for the funeral and live with my two kids on £117 a week?" I hope that, following the statement, I can ring him and give him good news. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether I can do so?

Mr. Darling: The proposal is that, from the implementation date of the changes, widowers will be treated in exactly the same way as widows, so that we avoid a situation in future where bereaved women receive the widows allowance and lump sum for themselves and their children, but men do not.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I follow on the questions asked by the Secretary of State's colleagues, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins)? The right hon. Gentleman knows that, since the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925, widows pensions have been based firmly on the contributory principle. Will he therefore confirm that the proposal is a decisive shift away from that principle towards means testing, and tell the House how that will foster a responsible society?

Mr. Darling: That is a bit rich from the Conservative party, which spent almost a quarter of a generation trying to undermine the contributory principle. The benefits remain contributory. The proposals are not a move towards means-testing. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that, during the past 50 years, many changes have been made to the widows benefits regime and to the

contributory principle. In many cases, we are extending the benefits that in the past were not available to men and increasing the lump sum. We are determined to ensure that those benefits are modernised to meet the needs of today's society. To say that no change is necessary, and ignore injustices, is absolutely crazy.

Caroline Flint: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly because it addresses the changing roles for men and women in our society. Some of the inequalities, such as low pay, that women face today are caused by the fact that there is still an assumption that they are earning pin money to keep the family going. That is not the case. Many women in my constituency are the only breadwinner in their family. I welcome the policy because—I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure me on this point—it addresses the changing roles of men and women, particularly the parenting role of the father. For too long, child care and domestic and family roles have been seen as women's burdens, and the proposals are part of the means of beginning to challenge that.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point, that fathers and mothers should play a greater role in bringing up their children. Perhaps some of us have further to go than others.
On my hon. Friend's general point, the Government's whole strategy on welfare to work and reform of the benefits system is to do everything possible to encourage men and women to work and to make work pay, something that the Conservative party opposes.

Mr. Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for going one step further than he needed to go. He may have been forced to extend widows benefits to widowers, including those with children, but I thank him for extending them to existing widowers with children. I draw his attention to the case of my constituent, who was widowed earlier this year, has two young children and is struggling to keep a part-time job to pay for child care. If I tell my constituent that he will have to wait two and a half years, he will be desperate. Must the package take two and a half years to be introduced? Could it not be introduced in even one and a half years?

Mr. Darling: The measure is part of a package. It will not be possible to implement the package before April 2001. It is always tempting to implement one part while delaying another, but the measure must be seen as part of a coherent package. Whatever the date is, there are bound to be problems either side of it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that, from the implementation date, we will be able to help fathers with young children, even those without mothers now. The hon. Gentleman must accept that all these changes take time. We need primary legislation, and we need to change our systems to enable us to introduce the package. April 2001 is probably the earliest that we can do that.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a point that builds on the interesting question from the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)? Is it his intention to put men and women on the same basis? Will the payment of the new


six-month bereavement benefit be determined by the level of contribution of the other spouse? If so, how will the Government deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), as contributions from wives are likely to be less than contributions from husbands? [Interruption.] Almost certainly. The hon. Member for Preston has a great deal of experience of these matters and knows what she is talking about. How will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that shortfall? Will there be a mechanism to equate the level of pension that husbands and wives receive?

Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, this is a contributory benefit. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He wants to defend the status quo, and now he is asking for a slight change in the contributory benefits system. Far more women now make contributions than was ever expected 50 years ago.

Personal Statement (Paymaster General)

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): Madam Speaker, I am taking the earliest opportunity available to me to apologise to the House for the late registration of my ownership of Stenbell Ltd., and the directorships of Agie UK between 1984 and 1987 and Transtec plc between 1987 and 1990. I have apologised in writing to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and have amended my entry in the register to include Roll Center Inc., which I owned between February 1988 and January 1992.
The House will want to be assured that these shareholdings and directorships were matters of public record. No attempt was made by me at any time to use my position in this House to advance any commercial interest. The oversight concerning registration, for which I apologise, is entirely my responsibility.

BILL PRESENTED

FINANCIAL SERVICES (ETHICAL, &C. CONSIDERATIONS)

Mr. Tony Colman presented a Bill to require the Financial Services Authority to issue guidance to persons authorised to provide financial services regarding advice to be given to clients: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 264].

Freedom of Information

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the right of access to information held by public authorities; and for connected purposes.
A freedom of information Bill is long overdue and much needed, as the role and complexities of Government are increased, particularly with the growth of the new technologies. The promise of such a Bill is one of the few promises to have endured in Labour manifestos since 1974, and it is yet to be realised. It survives there because, apart from the fact that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members throughout the Chamber, the concept has the endorsement of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister stated that in the introduction to the White Paper that was prepared for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). My right hon. Friend was a principal architect of the White Paper, and many of us would have liked to see him pilot through the legislation and realise that election promise by getting it on to the statute book as a Government Bill. However, I am pleased that he is in his place today. His presence, together with that of other hon. Members, underlines the fact that there is widespread support for a freedom of information Bill across the political spectrum. That support is also reflected by the sponsors of the Bill, which I shall publish today.
We desperately need to change the public service culture on the keeping of records and public access to such records. My Bill would make it a presumption that all records held by public bodies could, and should, be available for public access and scrutiny. The legislation draws upon the experience and the statutes of other jurisdictions, such as the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It defines "records" as any written or printed document, any plan, map, photograph, tape or electronic record.
The Bill does not exclude the security services, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service from its scope. It is right that we should not jeopardise their role in detecting crime and determining who should be prosecuted and the means of prosecution. The defence of the realm should not be put in jeopardy. My Bill would introduce safeguards to guarantee that those important functions were not impeded in any way. However, I believe that it is quite wrong that there should be a blanket exemption for the services to which I have referred.
Many members of the public will welcome the fact that the Bill's provisions would apply to the former publicly owned industries that are now in private hands, which enjoy a monopoly or near-monopoly. I have in mind industries such as water, gas, electricity and so on. The spirit of the Bill is one not of compulsion, but change: we want to change attitudes and encourage the holders of public records to prepare now to make them available. We want to reassure them that any reasonable custodian of such records would have nothing to fear from the fact that the public would have access to them.
Whenever there was disagreement, mediation would be the key. My Bill envisages that every Ministry, public agency, or former public utility that is now in private

ownership would designate a senior person to listen to the arguments of those seeking access, and of any agency refusing to grant access by claiming that the disclosure of information would cause substantial harm. We hope that the resolution of such differences would be dealt with in house, but, as a fall-back position, a new information commissioner would be appointed. He would have the status of a judge, and the power to demand access to documents and to reach some conclusion. He would also be able to issue instructions as to what documents could, and should, be made available.
"Reasonableness" is the key word throughout the Bill. That includes reasonableness in the cost of access. We will not tolerate any abuse of the right of access. However, the Bill also ensures that individuals with few resources who were trying to fight the big battalions—perhaps they opposed some motorway scheme or a proposal that adversely affected their businesses—would not be disadvantaged by cost. Charges would be very modest, but there would be safeguards against those who might seek to abuse the system. In addition, the legislation ensures that the disclosure of public records would not place a disproportionate additional burden on the public purse. 1 re-emphasise that I want a culture whereby our Ministries and agencies prepare documents and records in such a way that they can be made available at minimal cost and with least delay.
Obviously there would be tests for disclosure. The primary test would be the public interest, and exemptions would be justified only where the people resisting the disclosure of information could show that substantial harm would be done to the public interest. I make no apology for reminding the House of recent scandals: the BSE scandal; the Bristol royal infirmary scandal, in which people should have been given information a lot earlier; and the plight of, and distress experienced by, many people in respect of Gulf war syndrome—in all those cases, there was a failure to grant access to information, and to recognise that there were problems.
The history of all those shameful parts of our recent history would have been different had such a measure been on the statute book. Most related to the previous Administration. However, I am disappointed that, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a parliamentary question about the dates on which the Cabinet has met since the general election, I was not able to have that information. That underlines how we must change the culture of government and of people who advise Ministers. Why on earth cannot such information be made available?
I draw strength and support from the Prime Minister himself. Addressing the Campaign for Freedom of Information, he said:
It is not some isolated constitutional reform that we are proposing with a Freedom of Information Act. It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years.
I acknowledge the bottleneck for legislative time, but I say to my right hon. Friends that placing such a Bill on the statute book could be a great benchmark for the radicalism of the Government and, indeed, this Parliament, in which we are all privileged to serve. The Bill would become an enduring Act, which would create


new rights and enhance our democracy. I therefore hope that I have the overwhelming support of the House to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Martin Bell, Dr. Tony Wright and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to extend the right of access to information held by public authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 265].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Hanson.]

European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and for disagreeing to the further Commons amendment to the Bill in lieu, considered.

Lords Reason:
The Lords insist on their Amendments in page 2, lines 1, 2, 15 and 18 to which the Commons have disagreed and disagree with the Commons in their Amendment in lieu thereof, for the following Reason:
Because the review proposed by the Commons is not an adequate substitute for an electoral system that allows electors to vote for the individual party candidate of their choice.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments but does not insist on its Amendment in lieu.
I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the further Government amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendments, in page 3, line 46, at end insert—

'Review of electoral system

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons—

(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and
(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.'.

For the second time this week, I find myself at the Dispatch Box, which is always a pleasure, seeking this House's agreement to overturn a vote in the other place on the Bill. I am here because a group of people—whose only claim to sit in the legislature is some action of their forebears—believes that it has the right to impose its will on this democratically elected House.

Since we last discussed the Bill less than 48 hours ago, we have amended the review clause to give statutory effect to my promise last time to consult the Opposition parties about who should undertake the post-election review. That is now, or will be, if the House and the other place agree, in the Bill. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at Prime Minister's Question Time, there could also be a role for the independent electoral commission that was proposed by Lord Neill and his colleagues, which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and on which we hope to legislate as soon as possible.

Mr. Richard Allan: We are pleased to hear that the review has been strengthened, and hope that Conservative Members who have said that they


enjoy the Neill approach to electoral commissions will be satisfied with that; but I wonder whether the Home Secretary is aware that the Conservative spokesman, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, called for precisely such a review in Committee. I wonder whether the Home Secretary feels that the amendment is now satisfactory in terms of what he knows about what the Conservative peers wanted in June.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but it was not only in the other place that Conservatives were calling for a review. It is difficult to follow the contortions of the Conservative party on the issue over the past two years. On Monday, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said:
We cannot accept the latest review put forward by the Government."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 716.]
He added that it was "ludicrous", and criticised us for the fact that we were proposing that the review should cover the merits of the open list as well as the closed list. His comments were more revealing than he thought. They showed how this decrepit Opposition have lurched from one wheeze to another, and are now impaled on the ludicrous and indefensible proposition that hereditary Conservative peers should block the will of this elected House.
Among his other problems, the hon. Member for Hertsmere is suffering from a bout of serious amnesia.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way after I have dealt with the hon. Member for Hertsmere.
Here is a man who now says that a review, post the elections next June, is "ludicrous", yet, on 12 March in the House, the same man moved new clause 4 to the Bill. What did that propose? That said that the Secretary of State should establish an independent review of the advantages and disadvantages of the electoral system under the Bill—the closed list system—compared with the open list and first-past-the-post systems, and to do so no sooner than 12 months after the June elections.
That is the same thing as we put before the House on Monday, with one difference: we propose to carry that out within six months; the hon. Member for Hertsmere did not want it to happen until 12 months had elapsed. If he has some explanation of why he has changed his mind, I should be happy to give way to him.

Mr. James Clappison: Certainly. As the Home Secretary will know, we opposed the closed list from the outset, but, on the review, the Home Secretary's own memory is playing a few tricks on him. He will remember that, on Second Reading, he promised to listen to and to look at both sides of the arguments. Since then, he has received no representations in favour of the closed list, but has come down in favour of it. How can we have any confidence in him and his reviews when we have had an experience such as that?

Mr. Straw: If I had been in the hon. Gentleman's position, I would not have made that intervention, because it explained nothing. Of course I have been willing to

listen. No one can accuse me of not having listened to the debate. I have sat here for almost every minute of the hours and hours that we have devoted to the issue.
Indeed, I can fairly claim—I think I will have the generous approbation of Opposition Members on this—that, if I have done nothing else during the 35 hours, now, of debate, which is almost a world record, I have made Mr. Victor d'Hondt famous, and greatly contributed to the forthcoming annual Christmas quiz: name 10 famous Belgians. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are the others?"] Well, four hereditary Tory peers have Belgian origins.

Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I am going to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but let me deal with the hon. Member for Hertsmere.
We had the Second Reading of the Bill on 25 November. I did say that I would listen to the arguments, and I did listen to them. As my record on the Human Rights Bill shows, I believe in listening carefully to the arguments, and, where possible, accepting them, from whatever part of House they come. We were not able to accept the arguments in favour of the open list, for reasons on which—whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not—I shall expand in a moment; nor were we able to accept the arguments in favour of the Belgian system.
The hon. Gentleman knew all that by 12 March. On 12 March, he tabled new clause 4, which called for a review, not before we introduced the closed list, but after. On Monday, he turned on his head and said that he was not in favour of a review after all.

Mr. Lansley: I recall the same joke about the Belgians being made in the course of those many hours. We are even hearing the same jokes all over again.
Can the Home Secretary recall how many of his Back Benchers, in all those hours, spoke in favour of the closed-list system for next year's elections, and how many spoke in favour of an open list? In fact, all his hon. Friends are opposed to a closed list and in favour of an open list.

Mr. Straw: As ever, the Conservative Opposition spoil their case with exaggeration and invention. It is not true that every Labour Member has spoken with a difference of emphasis—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will. The numbers are clear from Hansard, and include my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) in the original debate on 25 November. The proposition was absolutely clear on that day. My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) said the same two days ago. Such is the power of the argument we have advanced that we have been massively supported in the Lobbies not only of the House of Commons, but of the other place. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must be able to hear the Minister.

Mr. Straw: The Conservative party must face up to what happens once someone is removed from the list.


The fact that 131 hereditary peers voted in favour of the change to closed lists provides the clearest possible mandate.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Home Secretary seriously suggesting that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) was in favour of the closed list?

Mr. Straw: Yes. I listened to his speech with great interest, and, if he was not in favour of the closed list, he could have voted in the No Lobby.

Mr. David Lock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I will in a moment. I have some more illuminating remarks to make to Conservative Members first.
Beyond the issue of a review, little has changed since Monday, except that the British people now see more clearly than ever why they were so wise to approve another categorical Labour manifesto commitment—the commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The more the public see of them, the stronger they make the case for abolition.
On the one o'clock news on the BBC, we witnessed the risible spectacle of the fourth Baron Ampthill—a Cross Bencher, as it happens—claiming to speak for the British people and British democracy. He, of course, voted with the Conservatives, as nearly all Cross Benchers do. [Interruption.] Thirty Cross Benchers voted on the Tory side—because most of them are Tories—and six voted against.
It was a stunningly difficult case for the fourth Baron Ampthill to make, and it was made no easier by the fact that his main claim to fame is that for four years he was general manager of the co-operative stores to the upper classes, Fortnum and Mason. His great-great-grandfather received the peerage, in 1881, for being no more than British ambassador to the German empire. I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), or any other Conservative Member, in the 117 years since creation of that barony, what right has Lord Ampthill or any other hereditary peer had to sabotage the decisions of this elected House?

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. While he is being gratuitously offensive to a Member of the other place—first because he earned his living working for a perfectly reputable company; and secondly because an ancestor gave distinguished public service—will he remember that the claim to fame of his noble Friend who has been appointed to lead another place is simply that she is the daughter of a former Labour Prime Minister and was married to a former ambassador?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Home Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will calm down while I am speaking. First,

his intervention was too long. Secondly—I tell those on both sides of the House—let us not get into the personalities of the other place.

Mr. Straw: We now have a statement from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who speaks for the moderates among Tory Members—God protect us from the rest of them. He is a serious Conservative Member. It is therefore interesting that he is claiming that hereditary peers have the same status—the same right to sit and to vote in the other place—as those who are appointed on their own merits. I note that, and file it.
I was casting no aspersions on Lord Ampthill, except to say that I find it risible that he was claiming to speak on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. It is important to examine the background not of individuals who are currently in the other place but of those who were "elected" there initially. The 26th Baron of Mowbray, Segrave and Stourton—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will have heard what you said about not dealing with personalities. If that applies to Conservative Members, may we assume that it applies also to Labour Members and to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have heard what I said. May I tell the Home Secretary that it does not help to talk about the personalities of individual office holders. We should be temperate in our language. I also tell hon. Members that I want to hear the Home Secretary. He is a very nice Home Secretary, and I want to hear him, but I have not been able to.

Mr. Straw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note that I had only to read out the name—the fact that he is the 26th Baron. That is all I said about him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: They rise to the point. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I should like to know whether he is making the same point as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—that hereditary peers have the same right as life peers to sit in the other place, and that those who are appointed on the merit of some long-dead forebear have the same right in the other place as those who are appointed on their own merit. Is that the point?

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I shall not talk about personalities, but simply ask whether the Home Secretary believes that one criterion for being Lord Chancellor, for example, might be having been the Prime Minister's pupil master, or that one criterion for being appointed Solicitor-General might be having shared a flat with the Prime Minister?

Mr. Straw: There is a serious point to make, which is that people on both sides in the other place who are


appointed as life peers are appointed on their own merit. Although the hon. Gentleman may disagree about who is appointed—as we sometimes disagreed about appointments by Conservative Prime Ministers—there is a profound difference between those who are appointed on their own merit, however much that may be challenged, and those who are there simply because of the actions or claims of their long-dead forebears.
As I reminded the House on Monday, the great Tom Paine, whom the Tory party at the end of the 18th century was trying to have locked up, and who had to go off to America, said, in a phrase that is as right today as it was then:
The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, as hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; as absurd as an hereditary Poet Laureate.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have given way a lot. I just want to make a couple more points.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Straw: Well, if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me about Tom Paine, I shall give way.

Mr. Cash: The Home Secretary is making an analogy with the 18th century. Does he not think that the new system that the Government are devising for replacing the hereditary peers is going back to the 18th century? Instead of rotten boroughs, he will be creating rotten peers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the replacement or removal of peers. [Interruption.] Order. I am stating to everyone in the House that that is not what we are debating, and everyone on both sides will have to listen.

Mr. Straw: We are not replicating a system that existed in the 18th century, for one incontrovertible reason, which will be acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides: Mr. Victor d'Hondt was not born until the 19th century, and without him none of this would have been possible.

Sir Peter Tapsell: rose—

Mr. Graham Brady: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the two hon. Gentlemen, then I shall get on.

Sir Peter Tapsell: I should like to bring the Home Secretary back from the 18th century to 1998, and back from personalities to the constitution, which he, as Home Secretary, is partly responsible for protecting. We rightly hear a great deal from him about the need to protect the rule of law in this country. Whatever may happen to the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, for the moment the law of the land says that hereditary peers

have the same voting rights in the upper House as life peers. It is not open to the Home Secretary to change the constitution by diktat.

Mr. Straw: It is certainly not open to me to change the constitution by diktat, and I should not have the impertinence to try to do so. The creator of modern so-called Villa Conservatism—Lord Salisbury—devised the Salisbury doctrine in the late 1880s, recognising the right of an elected House of Commons to meet its manifesto commitments. We have an unwritten constitution, so there is nothing in tablets of stone and no formal basic law that describes the powers of the other place or this House. We are dealing with carefully crafted conventions.
One of the most important conventions, which has kept a balance between this House and the other place, is that established by a distinguished former Conservative Prime Minister and party leader. Those on the Conservative Front Bench, and the other place, are seeking to destroy that convention.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is a point of order.

Mr. Cash: It is indeed a point of order. It is about the application of conventions in this House. The Home Secretary has just alleged that there was a Labour manifesto commitment on this issue. That is not the case—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he may be able to rebut the Home Secretary's argument, but it is not for me to worry about what the Home Secretary says.

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), and then I shall get on.

Mr. Brady: I apologise if I spoil the Home Secretary's fun by returning the debate to its theme. Instead of discussing the House of Lords, perhaps he could consider the difference between the democratic legitimacy of someone elected as a candidate standing in an open election and that of someone who is elected simply because the leader of his party put him at the top of a list.

Mr. Straw: I shall come to that.
We would not be holding these debates were it not for the fact that the other place has sent the issue back to us for the fourth time. Our manifesto commitment was clear—to introduce a proportional system of representation for the European Parliament. As with any party's manifesto, we did not set out every last detail, on that or anything else. That is a verity for all parties.
The closed-list system is used by more voters than any other system in Europe. Moreover, as I shall remind Conservative Members at greater length in a moment, it is a system that their own party used in the 12 months before the general election. They might therefore have spotted that it was the system most likely to be used.


I know of no Conservative candidate—I shall be happy to give way if there is one—who, whether he or she won or lost a seat at the general election, raised the issue of what kind of list system we should use for the European elections. Everybody understood what we intended to do.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall not give way; I have already given way many times.
The other place asked us to think again, yet it has offered us no new arguments to support that request. I have studied carefully what was said there. Yesterday's debate was notable for an excellent speech by the former Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, who made the important point that no electoral system is perfect, but that the open-list system contains within it, as I have shown, the possibility—indeed, the likelihood—of perverse results. My noble Friend also exposed the Conservative party's tactics for what they are—nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with opportunism.
Another notable aspect of the debate in the other place was what was not said. No new arguments in support of open lists were advanced, and no attempt was made to justify the perverse results that they can produce, or to say how those would be explained to a bemused electorate.
I shall spell the problem out, because I do not believe that Conservative Members properly understand what would happen. In the other place, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, said that he accepted that, under the open-list system, someone might be elected despite having received fewer votes than someone else on another party list. I take that admission as an important sign that, at long last, the penny has dropped a little with at least some of the supporters of the fundamentally flawed so-called open system.
The noble Lord then spoiled his argument by saying that such an outcome, whereby someone could lose but win, and someone else could win but lose, happens all the time under first past the post—when, he added, one compares one constituency with another.
It is an obvious truth that that may happen when we compare one constituency with another. I cannot quite remember how many votes I got at the general election, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there were so many, but it was a lot. Other people may have got more votes and lost—but that would have been in another constituency. Nobody in the House was elected having received fewer votes than somebody else in the same constituency. Yet that is the proposition being supported—

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I want the hon. Gentleman to listen, if he does not mind. If he pays attention, I may consider giving way to him later.
Conservative Members have not yet properly understood the point that I have just made. We are talking not about a comparison between votes cast in different electoral areas, but about votes cast in the same electoral area.
For example, one of the candidates for one of the parties—let us assume that that person is the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—may be so well known, in the west midlands, say, that he has got near the top of the list, or even right at the top. Everybody wants to vote for him, and few people want to vote for anyone else in the multi-member constituency. The right hon. Gentleman will get most of the votes, and the other Conservative candidates will get very few. In the other parties, the votes are more evenly distributed, and all the other candidates in the other parties get more votes than the second, third, fourth and fifth Conservative candidates. This point can be reversed.
Under the so-called open, or personal system—and because of the high vote that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield got—the result would be that people who received more votes than the second, third and fourth Conservative candidates would not get elected, and the people who got fewer votes than them would get elected. I suggest to Opposition Members that that would be an extraordinary and perverse result. What I have said is accurate, and has been acknowledged by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. All he could say is that that happens under first past the post—when it does not.

Mr. Brazier: In trying to make his case that one system of PR is even worse than another, could I ask the Home Secretary to recall in a few months the remark that he made a moment ago—that the great merit of the existing system is that you cannot be defeated by a candidate who gets fewer votes than you, which, of course, would disappear if alternative voting were introduced, as Lord Jenkins has recommended?

Mr. Straw: It might disappear because of some other things that Lord Jenkins may propose, but not because of the alternative vote. Under that system in single-member constituencies, the only person who can conceivably be elected is the person who receives the most votes. [Interruption.] I know we are talking about second or third preferences, but it is still the person who pops up at the top. Of course I understand that. It is no good the Conservatives getting angry about it. I am not arguing for the alternative vote system, but, under the system advocated by the Conservatives, there would be the most extraordinary results from the so-called open list, which is scarcely an open list at all.
If there were five vacancies under a true open list in a multi-member constituency, the voters would be given five votes. They might be given five votes as crosses to allocate equally, or five votes to allocate in order of preference. Under the Conservative system—which, I suggest, is only dimly understood by Conservative Members—voters in the five-member constituency would be given not five votes, but one vote, so that they could vote for only one candidate of their choice. Having voted for one candidate of their choice, they would trigger the operation of a list.
We are, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelt out, trying to save the Conservative party from itself in this endeavour. The Conservative party is saying that people will have a choice, but they will have nothing of the kind—except the oddest kind of choice, in which five vacancies have to share one single vote.
In contrast to the extraordinarily complicated system that the Conservatives are proposing, with the serious and perverse result that the winners lose and the losers win—


a system which can best be described as last past the post—there is the closed-list system. The great merit of the closed-list system is that the voters know exactly what they will get. They vote for the list as a whole, and they choose which team they wish to support.

Mr. Martin Bell: Speaking as the only Cross Bencher in this place—although I am not allowed to speak from the Cross Benches—can I wonder whether the British, as a free people, should not be voting for individuals rather than a party slate?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is the exception in this House that proves the rule. He stood as an independent candidate without a party.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Labour party backed him. [Laughter.]

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend also makes my point, and I am deeply grateful to him—as ever. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) may have had Labour party backing, but he stood as an independent. The people of Tatton had a choice between a Conservative candidate, who happened to be named Hamilton, and an independent candidate—the hon. Gentleman.
All the rest of us, who carry party labels, came here as party candidates on closed lists of one. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members complaining about that, because it is the truth, for the following reason.
It is easy to devise a system in which voters have a choice of party, but are also given a choice of candidate for that party—some systems of that sort exist in the United States. The ballot paper would offer a choice of, for example, the Labour, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, which would determine which party won, but it would also offer a choice of, say, three Liberal Democrat, Conservative or Labour candidates. Therefore, the primary takes place on the same day.
No party in the Westminster Parliament operates that system. Each selects its own candidate and presents the electorate with a single, closed list: one party, one candidate. So the principle that we are dealing with for the European elections is the same principle under which everyone in the House, bar the hon. Member for Tatton, has been elected.

5 pm

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Straw: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already given way a great deal.
Nor was any attempt made in the other place to answer the point made by the Conservative Lord Bethell—no friend of this Government—that Members and aspiring Members of the European Parliament would be known only to a tiny minority of the electorate, and that choices made between them would inevitably involve much randomness. I remind the House that the noble Lord said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph, which was published on Monday:
I wonder, though, if the Conservatives want the elections to he fought on the fully 'open list' system. If so"—

this is a warning that Conservative Members would do well to note—
they will run into problems. The open list offers a choice so wide as to be confusing, especially since hardly any of the several hundred candidates whose names will be put forward have any public profile. Ballot papers will carry 50 or more names. Hardly anyone will know of them. Voters will mark their crosses at random.
The arguments for the closed list are simple and persuasive. It is an easy system to use, it removes the need for randomness, and for possibly discriminatory choices, and it does not have the potential for anomalous results. It is used in five other major European countries: Germany, Greece, France, Spain and Portugal, whose people are just as committed to the principles of democracy as we are.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What has that to do with us?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) asks what Europe has to do with us—

Mr. Alan Johnson: It has very little to do with her.

Mr. Straw: Well, I understand her xenophobia, even though I do not share it.
I have never supported the proposition that, just because something happens in Europe, we should follow it, and I do not think that anyone supports it. However, the people of Germany, Greece, France, Spain and Portugal are just as committed to the principle of democracy as we are. They have been ready to accept the system. It has worked, and there have been no complaints about its fairness there.
I would also point out, in particular to the hon. Lady, but also to her hon. Friends, that she may have forgotten—those on the Conservative Front Bench have plainly forgotten it, but we have not—that the closed-list system was exactly the system that the Conservative Government used two years ago. [Interruption.] It is no good groaning about it. I know that Conservative Members do not want to be reminded of any of their history, but the closed-list system—

Mrs. Gorman: The right hon. Gentleman is being insulting.

Mr. Straw: I am not insulting the hon. Lady, but I will be happy to give way to her.

Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is substituting rhetoric for argument, I have stated in this House, and will do so again, that I do not particularly admire European systems. On examination, one realises that, over the centuries, they have produced unstable Governments or dictatorships, whereas our system of first past the post has guaranteed a democratic system under which this Government have flourished.

Mr. Straw: Those countries use modern systems, which have not produced what the hon. Lady suggests.
The Conservative Government introduced the closed-list system only two years ago. The system that the Tories now say raises a fundamental principle of


democracy is the very one that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), described as "fair and balanced"; he said that it would produce "a representative outcome".
As became obvious to all who heard the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield on Monday, there was really no way out of that box. All he could come up with was that the former Prime Minister had decided to use the system because of the "special circumstances" of Northern Ireland. The principal special circumstance was the creation of a path to democratic government in the Province.
Are we seriously being asked to believe that the former Prime Minister chose the closed list notwithstanding the fact that he believed at the time that it was an anti-democratic system? Of course he did not. He chose it because, as he said, it was fair, balanced, and representative; he also chose it for all its other merits of simplicity, which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spelled out at the time.
Over and above the arguments for the change, a simple, stark fact stands out. On each of the four occasions when the Government were defeated in another place, the outcome of the vote would have been different without the votes of the hereditary peers. Last night, the Labour Government achieved one of their highest votes ever for any of their legislation. A clear majority of those—from all parties and none—who were appointed to the other place on their own merit, voted for the closed list. Only the votes of the hereditaries—including 103 Conservative hereditaries—who are in the other place not on account of their own merit, but through the chance of their birth, defeated the Government's proposal.
The end of the Session is almost upon us. The Government remain committed to the electoral system in the Bill. If the other place persists in its stance, it must do so in the knowledge that it will cause the Bill to fall in this Session. The Government will have failed to achieve one of their manifesto commitments because of the obstruction of another place—a clear breach of the doctrine established by Lord Salisbury, the great-grandfather of the current Leader of the Opposition in another place.
Both on the merits of the issue, and on the constitutional principle, the House of Commons is right. I ask it to send the clearest possible message to the other place.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary has spoken on this matter four times, but his case is becoming significantly weaker and more threadbare. He has again set out the range of arguments that he used first time round. He keeps quoting Lord Bethell, but Lord Bethell said in the debate in the House of Lords last night:
I know that we cannot have a closed list, which is abominable. My noble Friend on the Front Bench is quite right."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 1139.]
The Home Secretary cites as support among Conservative peers someone who regards the closed list as abominable.
The Home Secretary is wrong in all his arguments. Moreover, many people will object to the arguments that he directed against named hereditary peers; those arguments will do neither his cause nor his reputation any

credit, especially as—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) should listen. One of the noble Lords who has consistently voted for the Government is Lord Warner, who was sent to the House of Lords for no reason other than the fact that he was the Home Secretary's special adviser. We shall not take lectures from the Home Secretary on this issue. As for Cross Benchers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Whip must be quiet.

Sir Norman Fowler: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Home Secretary ignores the argument about Cross Benchers and says that they normally vote with the Conservative party. Historically, that is rubbish. In the previous Parliament they voted almost consistently against the Conservative party. Cross Benchers' votes show that anyone who considers the issue from an independent point of view comes out against the Government's proposition.
The Prime Minister calls the position that we are in an affront to democracy. The true affront to democracy is to have a closed list, which denies the public the right to choose a candidate; to put power in the hands, not of the electorate, but of the party bosses; and to force this measure through in spite of all the arguments made, not only by Conservative Members and the House of Lords but, time and time again, by Labour Members.
The Home Secretary says that we have a constitutional problem, but he has no one but himself to blame for the mess that the Government are in. He has ignored all advice and pushed ahead with the closed list. If there is a constitutional problem, he is its author. His handling of the Bill has been an example of blundering incompetence, and all his arguments have been discredited.
The Home Secretary has made it clear that if the debate is lost we will go back to first past the post. I have made it clear that I would prefer that; but that is not the issue. The issue is the form of electoral system that we have under proportional representation. I am tempted to ask the Home Secretary whether his announcement that we will go back to first past the post is a threat or a promise. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Ronnie Campbell, please be quiet.

Mr. Cash: I have found it difficult—in fact, impossible—to vote with my party on this question, because I am so much against the principle of proportional representation, but I congratulate the Opposition on the fact that it looks as though we will go back to first past the post; and thank God for that.

Sir Norman Fowler: I knew that the time would come when my hon. Friend and I would march arm in arm together.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are no Conservative Members of the European Parliament from Scotland under first past the post. Has he consulted the Conservative candidates who have been chosen to go on the list for Scotland about the implications for their prospects of what he is doing?

Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman takes any interest in such matters, he will know that we are


committed to first past the post. I do not think that he attended any of the other debates on this subject, so he will not have noticed, but I have clearly set out that policy on every occasion.
The Home Secretary says that he is trying to deliver a manifesto pledge. The closed list was not a manifesto pledge. It could not be, because on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman himself set up a review of a system—the Belgian system or semi-open list—that went wider than the closed list. If everyone knew that we would get a closed list in any event, his review was a complete sham, so why did we waste our time?
The Home Secretary's argument is that everyone in the country secretly knew that the Labour party was pledged to a closed list. That will take a great deal of swallowing. Are we really to believe that Labour went to the polls in 1997 telling the public, "You can have a closed-list system or a semi-open system, but not an open-list system"? That is an absurd proposition.
That proposition was knocked down most conclusively by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Bern), who said:
Is there a mandate for the Bill? No one came up to me during the general election campaign to say, 'Tony, we will vote Labour only if you promise that we cannot vote for an individual candidate in the European elections.' No one said any such thing, and I did not know that that was the policy."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 685.]
The Home Secretary does not appear to have been very successful in explaining the position to the public, let alone convincing his own side.
The closed list was not a manifesto commitment, so let us forget that nonsense. No more credence should be given to the Home Secretary's argument that the use of the system in 1996 for the Northern Ireland deliberative forum creates a precedent for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made it clear at the time that the system was not ideal and was intended to meet the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, and that was the view of the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister.
Above all, the Home Secretary knows that there are and have been special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I assume that he does not propose to set free terrorists and criminals here in the same way that the Government are doing there. There are fundamental differences. Let us have no more of this nonsense.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman keeps failing to answer a fundamental point. His argument is not based on the merits of whether we had a closed-list or another system in Northern Ireland. He is saying that the closed-list system is anti-democratic: in other words, that it is absolutely beyond the pale for all purposes. Given that strong assertion, why did he support the use of that anti-democratic closed-list system for Northern Ireland?

Sir Norman Fowler: The system is anti-democratic in the way in which it will be used in the European elections. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said:
I agree with his view that the electoral solution is not ideal."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 500.]

The word "his" refers to the view of the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister.

Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the use of the closed-list system in Northern Ireland was anti-democratic?

Sir Norman Fowler: It met the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is also exactly what the Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister said.
By far the most significant feature of all our debates on the issue has been the almost total reluctance of Labour Members to speak out in favour of the closed list. As was demonstrated again last Monday, some of the most bitter criticism of the closed-list system comes from the Benches behind the Home Secretary.
On Monday, the Home Secretary claimed "overwhelming support" for the closed list, or what he then began to call the "simple list" system. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is rather franker on these issues, said:
It is customary to begin by saying that we have had a good debate. On this occasion, perhaps I will be forgiven for saying that it has been an interesting debate."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 717.]
By that, he meant that of six Labour Members who spoke and listened in the debate, four abstained from voting. Two thirds of those who spoke could not bring themselves to support the Government in the Lobby, while the two who voted with the Government said that they preferred the open list. They held their noses and voted with the Government.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fear that grips the Home Secretary is that, if the open list is adopted, people in Manchester, Yorkshire, Birmingham or London who traditionally vote Labour may be tempted to vote for the old-fashioned socialists who have been shuffled off down to the bottom of the list and to reject the new Labour luvvies who have been put at the top of the list by Mandelson towers?

Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Let me remind the House of some of the contributions from Labour Members. They are entirely relevant to what is now being seen as a clash between the Commons and the Lords. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who is not exactly a stranger to the debate on the House of Lords and its functions—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) wishes to intervene, I will be happy to allow her to do so. She was not much good in her previous Department, I cannot believe that she is much good—[Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said:
the arguments against the closed-list system are absolutely overwhelming. Indeed, those arguments are the same"—[Interruption.]


The Home Secretary should listen to this. The Minister for Local Government and Housing will not offer any advice. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Indeed, those arguments are the same as those arguments against the House of Lords itself for its Members all got in on the closed list. The Prime Minister draws up a little closed list, and puts all its Members into the House of Lords. If we get rid of the hereditary peers, which I would welcome, we shall have nothing but a closed list in the Lords. They will all be the Prime Minister's friends. My objection to the Bill is, therefore, the same as my objection to the House of Lords.
I do not think that even the Home Secretary would regard that as a wholehearted endorsement of his policy. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield does not like hereditary peers, but he seems to like even less the policy of appointees and placemen, which seems to make up Labour's vision of the future—the House of Lords as a giant quango.
In the same debate, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said:
It has been suggested that I should regard this as a battle between Lords and Commons, and that I could do myself a bit of good by voting with the Government this time. [Laughter.] Labour Whips do give us helpful advice: that is what they are there for. As Opposition Members are laughing, I want to make it clear that the Labour party is not a party of control freaks—I am authorised to say that … I shall leave the Chamber for a little while to commune with destiny … I intend to contemplate my vote, eat my sausage and mash, and hope that someone comes down to see me.
I do not know whether anyone went down to see him, but he did not vote for the Government.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said:
I feel very strongly about this matter … I saw the effect of list systems on the European Parliament and the control that all political parties exercised. I explained time and again—wrongly it now appears—that we would find it difficult to accept that system in Britain, because we had a genuine commitment to a constituency link and we believed that the individual was tremendously important in our system of government. I believe that very strongly."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 684-705.]
The hon. Lady also abstained.
Let no one think that the debate on Monday was in any way exceptional. The advantage of having so many debates on the same issue is that it has been possible to see the trend in the argument. The cast of Labour Back Benchers may change, but the arguments against the closed list are basically the same. In the debate on 27 October, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, quite bluntly:
I am not in favour of the closed-list system. I did not vote for it on Second Reading and I do not intend to vote for it tonight."—[Official Report, 27 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 196.]
On 10 November, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was equally blunt when he said:
the closed-list system allows fixers to get their way, which is the real reason why I oppose it.
Those are some of the Labour Members who have spoken against the measure. Labour Member after Labour Member has opposed the system. They have opposed the

transfer of power to the party organisation, and 1 suspect that, for every one who has spoken, there are dozens of others who echo those feelings.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a further deficit in the closed-list system is that in no circumstances can there ever be a by-election?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is true. It is just another of the issues involved.
We then get to the desperate defence from the Home Secretary. He recognises that the balance of the argument in this debate has been against him. He would have to be blind and deaf not to recognise that. He says, "Labour Members voted for us, you know." We must ask why so many Labour Members voted for a system in which they do not believe. The answer was given by the hon. Member for Wrexham in the debate on 10 November. He said:
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) argued, with good grounds, that there was no majority in favour of the closed-list system in the parliamentary Labour party. Yet, he also argued that the Government would have a large majority tonight. I ask the House to think about that contradiction. If there is no majority in the Labour party but the system is such that the Whips and the Patronage Secretary can dragoon Members through the Lobby—and I admit that I will be dragooned when the time comes—what legitimacy does the elected Chamber have in comparison with the unelected Chamber whose Members may, by and large, vote according to their own judgment on the right course of action for the country?"—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 226–29.]
That is a good question. Surely it is the question that we should be asking. This is a voting system that is wanted by next to nobody and it is being forced through against the opinion of both Labour and Conservative Members and against the vote in the House of Lords. The real issue is not whether the House of Lords is carrying out its right and proper function, but that Labour Whips are forcing support for a voting system which, if the Labour party was left to its own devices, it would reject.
In the House of Lords, the Labour party had substantial difficulty finding speakers to support its measures. Lord Shore, not exactly a Conservative hereditary peer, has to his great credit, spoken and voted consistently against the measure, as has Lord Stoddart. As I pointed out in the previous debate, even those who spoke in favour of the Government were careful not to argue for the closed list, although yesterday one of their Lordships did begin by arguing in that way, and then gave the game away when he said that he hoped that the court would be gentle with him. He had picked up a brief and momentarily forgotten where he was.
The real irony is that the only party which appears to have had anything approaching enthusiasm for this case is the Liberal Democrat party. Its official position is in favour of the open list so, naturally, it voted in favour of a closed list. The credibility of Liberal Democrats is in question, not only here but in the House of Lords. We have even seen the sad prospect of Lord Taverne voting for the closed list. Quite contrary to what the Home Secretary asserts, Lord Taverne once established that a named candidate could beat the party.
Lord Rodgers, now the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, is very much in the mould of his predecessor, Lord Jenkins, but without


Lord Jenkins's common touch. After all his changes of party, he has voted for the closed list. In this whole debate, after the Home Secretary, the Liberal Democrats have come out with least credit.
The argument has gone solidly against the Government. It has gone against them in Parliament and outside. The Times continues to condemn the measure, as do other newspapers such as the Daily Mail. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) is laughing. When Labour Members vote at the views of the Daily Mail, I wonder why the spin doctors, such as Alastair Campbell, spend so much time trying to win that newspaper's support.
Having lost every argument on the issue, the Government are now desperately trying to get going a debate on the Lords versus the people. It is the only argument they have. It is a little late for that argument, however, as one cannot run up a flag of democracy for an anti-democratic measure. This is an anti-democratic measure because it transfers power from the people to the party. [Interruption.] It puts power in the hands of the party bosses. That is the essence of the proposal, and that is why the House of Lords is entirely right to check that power. If the Government want a debate on the House of Lords, that is fine by us. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Caplin, you must be quiet. You must calm down.

Sir Norman Fowler: If the Government want a debate on the House of Lords, that is fine by us. They will find few people in their party, or anywhere else, who agree with their concept of a House of Lords of placemen and appointees, a giant quango of men and women who are on the list only because they can be relied on to vote for the Government. The Government do not want a second Chamber that takes an independent line. They do not want a second Chamber that exercises independent judgment. This Government cannot bear to be criticised, they cannot bear to be questioned and, above all, they cannot bear to be defeated. They reveal themselves in their true colours. The Government are arrogant, and that arrogance, sooner or later, will bring them crashing down.

Mr. Bill Michie: I wish to make it clear that I have abstained on this issue throughout, but I have done so with a heavy heart. I do not want the Conservatives to exploit what is, for many people, an issue of conscience. There has been too much banter and not enough substance to the debate on the problem. I am against not only the list system, but proportional representation itself. The problem is PR. I have not yet come across a more sensible system than our current one, although I am open to debate on another occasion.
I wish that we could have discussed every option, but we are unfortunately not in that situation. We now have trench warfare. Throughout history, both sides have been damaged in trench warfare. In this case, both sides will suffer and democracy will be no better off for it. My abstention is based on my belief in democracy and my belief that I am accountable to a constituency. I have the right to stand for election as a human being, on the party ticket but not as a mere cog in a party machine. That is not why I am in Parliament.
If I get the sack from the people, so be it, but I would rather be sacked by the people than through the fiddling of a party list controlled by people who are almost unknown. I am not against the Labour Government, but I feel strongly that we need a system that allows the expression of the people's opinion to be heard and counted correctly.

Dr. Nick Palmer: My hon. Friend has so far argued on the merits of the issue. Does he also argue that the unelected and undemocratic House of Lords has the right to overrule the House of Commons, even when a general commitment to a proportional electoral system was in our manifesto?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not have been present at the time, but I have already made the point that we are not debating the structure of the House of Lords or its powers. We are debating the amendments before us.

Mr. Michie: I have no truck with the hereditary peers or the Tory party. It is ironic that some Conservatives do not like the so-called closed-list system, but they support a closed list that has lasted longer than any other—the hereditary peers, who are selected by the elite. I do not want the same to happen to the House of Commons or to our democratic voting system. The closed list does not give total freedom of choice to the electorate. Fortunately, my abstention will not rock the Government, and it may be a futile gesture, but I feel that I have to make it.
I do not doubt that the present system leaves much to be desired, but the breaking of links with the present constituency system is wrong. The proposed system will not help democracy in any way. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made the point that we have no real choice if we have to choose between an inadequate system and an even more inadequate system. That is the dilemma that I and many other people face. It is not that we have no confidence in the Labour Government or that the Tories have any better ideas. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was very kind today because he said that he wanted the system changed to give other people a chance. He is also being kind in allowing the Tories to have a platform, because since the election they have not had one and that is why they are so enthusiastic about the issue.
We all worry that the European Parliament elections are viewed with scepticism and cynicism. We worry about the low turnout, but that is not because of the first-past-the-post system. It is because people are cynical about the European Parliament. They cannot feel any enthusiasm about it because it is so remote, and that is why they do not turn out to vote. Therefore, I cannot understand why we would wish to introduce a system that makes even the candidate remote. The candidate will be no longer a person, but a part of a party machine and that will make matters worse for European elections, not better. I will again abstain with a heavy heart, and I hope that my comrades will understand.

Mr. Allan: I approach this afternoon's debate with the same feelings as someone about to take the driving test for the fifth time—slightly nauseous and with my customary optimism dimmed by the previous four failures. However, unlike someone who has failed the driving test, we have


passed the test in this House on four previous occasions with considerable majorities. What has happened is that the tester has asked a panel of people descended from his grandfather's friends for a second opinion, and sent it back to us on that basis.
I am pleased to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), whose views I respect, even though they differ from my own, on this as on many other subjects. I know that he holds them with great sincerity. In deference to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), another neighbour, I shall try not to refer to the first-past-the-post system as the closed list of one. Instead, I shall refer to it as a system in which the electorate have no option but to vote for the single candidate selected by the party if they wish to vote for that party. I hope that that more accurate and snappy rendition will satisfy him.
The people last year elected a Government with a mandate to bring in fair votes for Europe. Two thirds of the people in this country gave their votes to parties committed to that principle. This elected Chamber has now voted four times for the Bill to be passed without further amendment. If the Conservatives hold to their belief that their opposition should be loyal and democratic, they should stop playing partisan games and let the people cast their verdict on the system in the elections next year.
At worst, the closed-list system has been said to be an affront to democracy because party machines can be less than perfectly democratic in ordering their candidates. The Labour party has done its best to give us examples to highlight the problem for us, but party machines at least have to seek a mandate for their internal processes from their many hundreds of thousands of members. However much I deplore what sometimes happens in some parties, when it comes to a contest about democratic legitimacy, what happens within parties still strikes me as infinitely more democratic than allowing decisions to be made by those selected by heredity. Labour Members who are angry about selection processes should consider that.
Tonight, we have a choice: we are offered an election system decided by the democratic majority in this House, which involves a considerable degree of party influence in ordering candidates; or we are offered the alternative of an election system, chosen by the other place by people who owe their power to an accident of birth and who will combine with the hand of God arbitrarily to choose which candidates are elected from entirely open lists.

Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is perfectly possible, even under the system proposed by the other place, for the Government to ask that parties structure the open list in the order of party preference? What the Lords want, and what that would allow, is for those who support a party to be able to choose which candidate they want.

Mr. Allan: That is fine for the candidates at the top of the list—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is interested in this matter, but his hon. Friends seem keen to engage him in debate. His proposal would suit the top person on the list, and it would be fine in my party's case, where only the top person is likely to win through in many cases. However, it would not suit the second, third or fourth

person on the list. Under the system proposed by the Conservatives, only one cross goes in the box. Will they tell their supporters that the list is ordered, and that those whose house numbers begin with one should vote for the first candidate, and those whose house numbers begin with two should vote for the second, and so on? There are fundamental flaws in that system.
Labour Members should realise that the option of our choice is by far the more democratic of the alternatives on offer. They can, at least, be elected to their national executive committee, but they have no hope of becoming Lord Muck of Nether Regions. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) contradicts that point, having been a peer in the past, and having no chance of being elected to the NEC, but Labour Members can change their party's processes if the will exists for change.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: This is the fourth or fifth time I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on this matter. Perhaps he will give me a straight answer to a simple question. What is his preferred option? I do not want to know what he will vote for, but what he believes in.

Mr. Allan: For the fourth or fifth time, my view is that the open-list system is preferable, but that the system proposed in the amendment is not the one. We prefer the Belgian open-list system, which we proposed in Committee, for which we voted, and on which the Conservatives failed to support us. Irrespective of the merits of selection on the list process, members of any political party have the ability to alter the list through internal mechanisms. That option is not available to those who wish to change decisions made by people in the other place, to which we have no right of entry.
I feel a need to address my comments principally to the Conservatives who are, once again, backing a Lords amendment. I hope that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will think about their duty at this eleventh hour. An imperfect system is on the table, and I have admitted to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that it is an imperfect system, and that it is not the ideal that the Liberal Democrats would propose if we were in power. However, the Government have agreed to a system that will introduce proportionality to the European elections for the first time, although it does not extend voter choice when it comes to candidates. We would like to extend voter choice, but we have accepted the Government's decision. When the matter was debated, and voted on, in Committee, we accepted that the Government had made their decision.
The latest last-minute attempts to amend the Bill are futile, and they are designed chiefly to obstruct the Bill rather than seriously to improve it. The fact that the specific system proposed in the Lords amendment has some clear flaws only adds to that impression. Evidence that the amendment is a ploy to block the Bill appears in the words of the Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. At the Committee stage, Lord Mackay made two interesting points. First, he criticised systems in which people could be elected with fewer personal votes than others who were not elected, calling such an outcome "manifestly unfair". As the Home Secretary has said, that is precisely what could happen as a result of the amendment. We cannot understand why that shift should have taken place.


Secondly, Lord Mackay proposed precisely the kind of review proposed by the Government amendment in lieu. He told the Committee that he was "a realist", that he accepted that next year's elections would be under a closed-list system and that the most important thing was that there should be a review. He even ventured to suggest that the closed-list system might actually work, saying that, if all went "swimmingly and excellently", the Government would
have nothing to fear at all."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 1998; Vol. 591, c. 355.]
Why is it, then, that, when the Conservatives are being offered exactly what they wanted in Committee, they appear to want to change the democratic will of the House of Commons? Our conclusion must be that they are seeking to achieve a partisan goal of preserving an unfair voting system, irrespective of any constitutional principle that is broken along the way.
What would happen if the Conservatives withdrew their support for the amendment? The elections would go ahead with a less-than-perfect system, but we would have a fairer voting system, which appeared in manifestos supported by the majority of the electorate. It would mean for the first time that every vote cast in Britain would count. Far from talking down the turnout, all parties would have an incentive to get out every vote in every part of the country. There would be no more electoral deserts once we moved to the proposed system.
5.45 pm
I ask the Conservatives to consider the point at which a revising chamber becomes a blocking chamber. It has become clear during the course of our debate that the Lords amendment is not a simple revision, but a fundamental issue facing the Government. Whatever the Government's reasons for their decision, and however unhappy or happy some of their supporters are about it, it was their decision, and they are the elected Government. The Conservatives themselves describe the amendment as an issue of fundamental principle. In that case, there is no argument for saying that the other place is merely tidying up the Bill, or revising it at the margins. The other place is raising a fundamental issue of principle. The Government take one view, the peers take another. It is clear that the elected will should prevail.
To continue to seek to reverse the Government's decision once it has been so clearly made is not, in any sense, to seek to revise the legislation. It is an explicit challenge to the Bill as a whole. I must ask the official Opposition whether they see their role as one of blocking legislation for which the Government have a mandate, and which two parties that commanded 60 per cent. of the vote last year espoused at the general election and have consistently supported in Parliament ever since.
The Conservatives have called the people to their aid throughout the debate, claiming to act on the people's behalf against the party machines. I challenge the Opposition to let the people have their will as expressed at the ballot box on 1 May 1997, when they voted for parties committed to electoral reform. Let the people give their verdict on the system in the Bill. We have heard much pre-judgment about what the people will or will not accept for the elections. We have heard apocalyptic visions of how the system will mean that the people will not bother to vote. However, we should give the people

the chance to make their own decision about the system next June. If they do hate it, the Conservatives can have the satisfaction of saying, "Told you so."
There is a firm commitment to a review. I assure the Conservatives that the Liberal Democrats will play an active role in that review, and we shall campaign with anyone for change where problems have been identified. If the Conservatives have any confidence in their own abilities, they should work on the assumption that they can win a general election before the European elections of 2004. They would then have the chance to outline their own ideas for a better voting system. It could be a key part of the Conservative manifesto, and the party could seek its own mandate for a reversion to the first-past-the-post system.
Until then, the Conservatives should make a careful judgment about when loyal and effective opposition slips into a bloody-minded, partisan attempt to frustrate change for which there is a mandate. The official Opposition can no longer hide behind the fact that there is no explicit mandate for a technical aspect of the Bill. It is absolutely clear that the whole Bill is at stake now.
I ask my hon. Friends to use their votes, once again, to help the Bill on to the statute book. If it passes, every citizen in Britain will next year, for the first time in a national election, have a chance to cast a vote with real value. We shall not support the Conservative amendment. We shall back the Government's call for a review.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Like a bad film, this is where we came in, and came in, and came in, and came in. I am told that there have been astonishing scenes in the other place during the past week. Apparently there were more Range Rovers than ever before in the car park, and some people had to ask their way to the Chamber. There is an undelicious irony in the fact that the other place is lecturing the House of Commons on the essence of democracy.
Those hereditary peers who sit in the other place have never stood in elections, and know nothing about elections, yet they are telling us how to run elections. They are wilfully overturning a clear Government commitment to introducing a system of proportional representation for the European elections. They are, in effect, allowing themselves yet again to be Mr. Hague's poodle. They are signing their own death warrant and their actions are totally self-defeating. The essence of the matter is that they know that time is running out for the Government and that the alternative is the first-past-the-post system.
The Conservatives are, as always, against any change. If there were to be a first-past-the-post system for the European elections next May, the major casualties would be Conservative candidates. The Government, in their enormous beneficence, have provided a system that will help to raise the Conservative party's corpse from the dead.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No, I want to be brief.
Perhaps the Conservatives' motive is to reduce the number of Conservative MEPs because they know that, when they go to Brussels and Strasbourg, they tend to go native and might not support party policy.


I accept that open and closed lists are not a barricades issue or a great issue of principle. The arguments are finely balanced. The closed-list system ensures that women and people from ethnic minorities can have their rightful place in the list.

Ms Diane Abbott: As a woman from an ethnic minority who succeeded under first past the post, I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the closed-list system proposed tonight would be passed in the House on a free vote.

Mr. Anderson: I am not a Whip, I have never been a Whip and I am unlikely ever to be a Whip, and my arithmetic is very bad, so I would not like to answer that question.
The open-list argument is based on simple fallacy—the argument that it is more democratic. It is as if there were, on the Rousseau analogy, a forest clearing in Switzerland where the citizens meet and decide who are the best to go forward in their name. Surely the essence of multimember constituencies is that they are all large and the individuals will be known only to a very few of the electorate. An election can therefore degenerate into a beauty contest between media stars. I know of other open-list systems in which there are several party members, but they are a recipe for internal party strife and an investment in the worst sort of populism.
It is absolutely clear that this is not a debate about a great principle; it is surely no more than a device used by the Opposition to embarrass the Government and kill off a Bill.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I thought that, with the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), we would at last have a Labour Back Bencher supporting the Government, but of course he did nothing of the sort. The speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats demonstrated once again that he prefers open lists but will vote for closed lists. So much for principle and the Liberal Democrats.
This is the fifth debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill in which I have taken part. I do not intend to repeat myself, so I shall be brief.
Certain misconceptions have arisen, particularly during the past few weeks. The first, which was said on the "Today" programme yesterday and has been repeated in a number of newspapers and stated by the Home Secretary, is that the Lords are acting deliberately to frustrate a Labour party manifesto commitment. That is either sloppy journalism or the Labour party spin doctors have been working extremely hard, because it is not true. The Labour party manifesto commitment was simple: there would be elections for the European Parliament on a regional basis and by proportional representation. None of the amendments that have been returned to the House in the past few weeks by the Lords has contested those points.
The second misconception is that we already have closed lists for Westminster parliamentary elections; it has been put forward by the Home Secretary time and time again. He knows that it is pure sophistry on his part.

We all know that in our selection systems hundreds of local people and supporters make selections from hundreds of candidates. That is not a closed-list system such as the system that the Home Secretary intends to operate, in which the order of the candidates and their likelihood of being elected would be determined by Millbank tower.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about how candidates in our party are selected, but in the Labour party, candidates such as the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) are simply parachuted in by the central party.

Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. If the Labour party had a selection system similar to ours, it would not be in its current difficulties.
The third misconception is that it is for a political party alone to decide its selection procedures. If a proposed law permits an undemocratic system that ignores the wishes of the local people and promotes those of the party machine, it is right for either of the Houses of Parliament to try to amend that law. That is not simply a matter for parties, because democracy is a matter for Parliament.

Mr. Bermingham: Surely it is for a party to decide how it will select its candidates. That is an entirely internal matter. If one has a dispute with an internal system, one fights it internally. That is not a matter in which outside bodies should interfere unless it is contrary to natural law.

Mr. Sayeed: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. A law that would permit an anti-democratic system is a bad law.

Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sayeed: No. I wish to be brief.
The fourth misconception is that expressions of support for the Government can be counted only in the voting lists. Anyone who knows how Labour Whips work, who knows the power of the Patronage Secretary—that name is not given lightly—and who knows the brutal tactics of Millbank tower will know that many Labour Members are dead against the party's proposals for closed lists but will vote as their Whips dictate. Labour Back Benchers' thoughts are demonstrated not by votes but by how they have spoken during the five debates and by the fact that not one has given whole-hearted support to his Front Benchers.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am as whole-hearted as I am likely to be in supporting any Government measure.

Mr. Sayeed: If that is whole-hearted, I would hate the hon. Gentleman to be agin me, because I would still not understand whether he was agin me or for me. It sounded as though he was sitting on the fence. If he wants to be a great supporter of the Government's measure, all I can say is that he is the first.
The ability to resolve the dilemma is in the Government's hands. They can make sure that they fulfil their manifesto commitment to conduct regional elections


to the European Parliament on a PR basis. All they need to do is abandon closed lists. Alternatively, they might be able to get away with it in the Lords if they undertook to operate closed lists as we intend to operate them. If they do neither, the loss of the Bill will be the Labour Government's fault. They will deserve all they get.

Mr. Terry Rooney: This is the first time I have spoken in the many debates on the Bill, but I felt the need to speak tonight. As I have done on every occasion, I shall support the Government tonight, even though I am 150 per cent. committed to the first-past-the-post system.
The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment. I know that that is a strange concept to the Conservatives, which is part of the reason why they are on the Opposition Benches. A proportional system was endorsed as part of the Labour party manifesto in the general election. The only arguments left are on implementation. However improbable it may seem, a closed list is obviously the best system of implementation for the regions in question. For a region such as Yorkshire, with 5.5 million voters, it is nonsense to suggest that people in Redcar will recognise someone from Sheffield, 90 miles away.

6 pm

Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the one set of people who are likely to be recognised by the voters and to attract support in a European election are existing MEPs? Will he therefore remind the House how many existing Labour MEPs have been placed by his party in a winnable position on his party's lists?

Mr. Rooney: The hon. Gentleman is wise enough to know that most of us in this House are far less recognised than we would like, and that is even more true of MEPs, with the larger constituencies that they represent. One of the greatest fallacies perpetuated by politicians is the weight of their personal vote. The personal vote is nonsense. Personal identification is nonsense, except in a small number of cases. [Interruption.] I do not even mind saying in my own case that personal identification is nonsense. In the Bradford, North constituency in the 1997 general election, whoever was the Labour candidate would have won. It was not Terry Rooney who won. I might have made five votes difference in a positive sense—or lost 100 votes, for all I know.
What matters is not the individual, but the party. We know that that is overwhelmingly the case. That is why the closed-list system is much simpler and easier for the electorate to understand and deal with than a ballot paper with 50, 60 or 70 names on it. If we look at the local council elections in London this year, and the number of votes that each party's candidate got in each seat, we see that, without exception the candidate placed highest on the list got the most votes, and the next highest on the list of that party got the second highest number of votes.
That is the system proposed for the European elections, which would mean that voters had to read down a list of perhaps 50 names to identify the seven or eight candidates who were Conservative, Labour or whatever—what nonsense.
The real concerns about the closed-list system relate to the ranking order, but those are internal matters for a political party. The day this House tries to interfere with the rule book of a political party is the day this House dies. The political parties must determine their own rules.
I shall support the measure tonight, and I beg the House to do so too.

Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to the House for the fact that I missed the first part of the debate. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was chairing a Standing Committee.
I shall make a straightforward contribution on behalf of my constituents in North Thanet and those living in the Euro-constituency of East Kent, in which I also live.
At Question Time this afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that this was a device of the Tory hereditary peers designed to wreck a piece of legislation that the House wanted. You know me well enough, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that I would not for one moment suggest that the Prime Minister misled the House, but there is some case for saying that he tried to mislead the British public who might have been watching on television.
The matter has nothing to do with Tory hereditary peers. The argument is simple. It concerns the right of the individual elector to vote for an individual candidate of the party of his or her choosing. The rest is a smokescreen. I shall give two examples—one theoretical and one literal—of the practical effect, beginning with the literal example.
For the past four and a half years, the Euro-constituency of East Kent has been represented by a Labour Member. There are many things that that Member has not done which might have furthered the interests of his constituents, which is a source of some criticism. There are things that he has done which are also a source of criticism. Specifically, he claims authorship of the European ferry passenger registration directive, which will affect the livelihoods of people working on the cross-channel ferries.
Hon. Members may not be aware that, if that directive is introduced, it will require every man, woman and child travelling back and forth across the channel to register their name, age and sex, before travelling. As a result, the queues from the channel ports will stretch far back along the roads, and the ferries will be disadvantaged. One MEP has been responsible for that legislation, which has deeply angered his constituents. I cannot tell whether that anger will manifest itself to such a degree that he will be ejected from his seat at the next election, but I know that the electorate of East Kent want the opportunity to voice judgment on his stewardship of his seat.
Under the proposals before us, that MEP has been placed by the Labour party at the top of the list. Unless nobody in East Kent or the south-east votes Labour—dream on—that MEP will be there for life, provided that he stays on-message and keeps his nose clean. That cannot be democratic.
Let us consider a theoretical situation.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: No. The hon. Gentleman intervenes on virtually everyone. I want to be brief.
Consider the case of a Labour voter who is anti-abortion and wants to vote for candidates to his or her moral liking. If that voter casts a vote and if the


Labour candidate at the top of the list is pro-abortion, the voter is inevitably voting for a moral principle that he or she abhors. That is not democratic.
No, the issue is nothing to do with the hereditary peerage. It is to do with the right of one voter to exercise his or her vote for the candidate of his or her choice, of whatever political party and moral persuasion.
The Prime Minister said at Question Time this afternoon—with considerable arrogance, some of us felt—that, were we to go back to the old system—the one that everyone understands, first past the post, one member one seat, win or lose—the Conservative party would indubitably win fewer seats in the European elections. That is a chance that we are prepared to take in defence of a principle: the right of the individual to exercise his or her vote as he or she wishes. That is the principle that the Prime Minister seeks to abolish.

Mr. Bermingham: I was sad that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) would not let me intervene, and accused me of intervening all over the place. I do not. I intervene only when an hon. Member makes a patently bad point, as I see it. I expect that others intervene in my speeches if I make patently bad points. That is what the Chamber is all about—at least, it used to be when the hon. Gentleman and I first came here. There seems to be a little intolerance in the Opposition these days, but these things happen. He well knows that, under the current system, if a Member has what is called a safe seat, he or she will be there for life—assuming that that Member obeys the party rules.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has just made a patently bad point. If a so-called safe seat ensured that a Member was elected for life, 100 of my former colleagues would be sitting beside me this evening. However, under first past the post, they were thrown out.

Mr. Bermingham: That is because they were patently not safe seats. So we return to the subject at hand.
I have spoken several times about this matter, and I am sad that my old and hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) is not in the Chamber. I intended to try to persuade him not to waste his vote by abstaining. That is what one does when one abstains: one makes no point one way or the other.
We have reached a situation where the Government—my party—wish to put their political will before the country. At the end of the day, the people will decide whether the system is good or bad. If the system is bad, they will thump us. The Government wish to introduce a system that will be reviewed in due course. At this stage—on the fifth occasion—surely the House of Commons has the right to tell the Lords that this is the will of the people.
The measure was in the manifesto, and it has been accepted by members of the governing party. Labour Members are not rolling about the aisles in rebellion. I accept that there has been the odd vote against the measure and the odd abstention—such is the entitlement of any hon. Member. However, the overwhelming bulk of the Government party has voted consistently for the measure in its present form.
I say to the Lords: that is the will of the people. If their will as expressed by the Government is wrong, the people will surely tell us by voting against us. The next referendum—as it were—on this subject should be in June next year. It is time that this ping-pong farce ended.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In response to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I contend that, if the voters had wanted a closed-list system, we would have seen some evidence of that desire. If the focus groups had suggested to the Government that the people wanted a closed-list system, it would have been stated specifically in the Labour party manifesto. The truth is that not a single party represented in the House included the closed-list system in its manifesto. It is worth repeating the words of the bishop who said last night in another place:
I believe that we shall be doing the right thing by the democratic principles which have prevailed in this country for a very long time."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 1148.]
There are two constitutional principles involved. The first is that the governing party with a majority in the House of Commons should expect to get its way. If the Government were to accept the amendments, they would still have a proportional representation system—albeit not the one on which they have lately decided to insist. The second principle is that the second Chamber tries to defend the rights of the voters. For example, the House of Lords has the opportunity of preventing the House from extending the life of a Parliament. Those are the kinds of democratic principle that the second Chamber represents.
We turn to the question of support for the form of proportional representation that the Government are attempting to force through Parliament. This time, I will put my question to the House, not the Minister. Will those Labour Back Benchers who embrace the closed-list system as their personal preference intervene on me now? Not one Labour Back Bencher is prepared to state that that is his or her personal preference.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Was the hon. Gentleman not in the Chamber earlier this evening when several Labour Members spoke in favour of precisely that system?

Mr. Bottomley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will bear witness to the fact that even the Minister has not declared that the closed-list system is his personal preference. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) said that he was 150 per cent. behind the single-member constituency. I have made my point. The Minister failed to answer my question during his winding-up speech on Monday: he could not name one Labour Back Bencher who has disclosed that this system is his or her personal preference. We know how the Government Whips can force Labour Members through the Lobby.
Let us turn to the only other significant argument in this debate, which was advanced by the noble Lord Callaghan in the other place. He pointed out that the Government were offering a review that would make it possible to introduce a better system. By proposing that the Lords should go quietly because a review is promised, he acknowledges that the closed-list system is not the best system even in his view.


My conviction is that the other place will be justified if it decides to hold to its view that the voters should be able to cast their votes for individual candidates and influence who represents them, and to decide that it should not be left to the parties to put names on a closed list. I believe that the other place will be right to say that the Government's insistence on their course of action is unjustified and undemocratic.

Mr. Martin Linton: I have three questions that I hope will introduce new points into the debate and be addressed by the Opposition.
My first question concerns the nature of the system that the Opposition propose. They favour not the so-called Belgian open-list system—which the Government considered and rejected—but the Finnish open-list system. As far as I can establish, that system is used by only two countries in the European Union—Finland and Luxembourg—and I have not heard any Labour or Liberal Democrat Member speak in support of it. The system prevents voters from voting for parties: they can vote only for candidates. That leads me to my first vital question.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Government have chosen not to return to another place, in lieu of the Lords amendments, an amendment in favour of the Belgium list system, if that is the system that he—by implication—and the Liberal Democrats support?

Mr. Linton: The Government considered that course of action and decided against it.

Mr. Lansley: Why?

Mr. Linton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister.
My first question for the Opposition is: how will the system work? How will you order your candidates on your list? As I understand it, there are only two ways to do that under this system. You can put the candidates either in alphabetical or in random order. Should you decide to put your candidates in alphabetical order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) keeps using the term "you". I do not have any candidates to put in order—at least, not yet.

Mr. Linton: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was of course referring to potential Conservative candidates. I have a copy of the Conservative party's list of candidates for the European elections, who are listed under the party name. If those candidates were re-listed alphabetically, Javad Arain, who is currently No. 4, would jump into first place in the east midlands. This is a perfectly relevant question, because that is precisely what happens in Finland. That country has an alphabetocracy: the people whose names begin with the letters A and B are much more likely to be elected.
In the eastern region, Sir Graham Bright—former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—would find himself in first place on the list. Most interestingly, Lord Bethell—who is now at No. 3—would go to No. 1 on the list for London. Before we take this proposal seriously, the Opposition must explain how the system would work.
My second question concerns Lord Bethell. When the issue was debated in the House of Lords last night, two of the three Conservative peers who are standing in the European elections voted with the Opposition. The third, Lord Bethell, did not vote.
I ask myself why Lord Bethell did not vote. We may have a clue—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: From the list.

Mr. Linton: No; we may have a clue from the letter that Lord Bethell wrote to The Daily Telegraph, which said:
The open list offers a choice so wide as to be confusing, especially since hardly any of the several hundred candidates whose names will he put forward have any public profile. Ballot papers will carry 56 or more names. Hardly anyone will know them. Voters will mark their crosses at random.
That is the view of the most senior Conservative peer who has already been a Member of the European Parliament expressing his views on the Opposition motion. He went on:
A change to the open list will also cause conflict between candidates of the same party, who will be competing as much against their colleagues as against their adversaries. One advantage of the closed list is that in London, for instance—where I hope to stand—all 10 of us Conservatives are in the same 'job lot'. A vote for one is a vote for us all.
Those are the views of the most prominent Member of the House of Lords who is a candidate in the European elections. How does he square that with Conservative Front-Bench support in the House of Commons for a system that he has denounced?
My third question is intended to be helpful: have Opposition Front Benchers considered the effect on their own party lists were—heaven forbid—that system to be adopted? If there were seven, eight or nine names on a list in alphabetical order, and a vote could be registered only by voting for one of those candidates, there would be increased temptation for people to vote for Europhile or Europhobe Conservative candidates. There would immediately be a campaign to support the Europhobe candidates, which would no doubt be backed by a large sum of money. Many voters would want to move those candidates to the top of the list.
On the other hand, Conservative voters, in their maturity, may prefer the Europhile candidates, and may fill the European Parliament—

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does that not precisely illustrate the point about voter choice? The system proposed by the other place would give voters the ability to make that choice, which the Government's proposals would deny them.

Mr. Linton: That illustrates the point very well, but can Conservative Members explain what would happen if Conservative voters returned to the European Parliament only pro-European Conservative MEPs? Those MEPs would stand on their own manifesto as pro-Europeans and pro-single currency, but we understand that the Conservative party manifesto puts off a single currency until the election after the election after next. On whose manifesto would those MEPs be elected—their own, or the party's?


As soon as Conservative Members introduced that dog's breakfast of a system, they would have not only serious problems with different campaigns for Europhile and Europhobe candidates, but a complete lack of clarity about who those people would represent and on whose manifesto they were elected. It would be in the interests of the whole House if Opposition Front Benchers admitted that they supported the amendment, of which they know little, for opportunistic reasons. If it were enacted, it would damage their party more than any other.

Mr. Lansley: The debate is becoming positively surreal on the Government Benches: we have arrived at a point at which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is trying to protect the Conservative party from internal divisions and debate over Europe. I had thought that the opposite was precisely the Government's objective, on all occasions.
The hon. Member for Battersea does that because—as distinct from his speech on Monday night—he did not want to explain his own preference. That preference was clearly stated on Monday: he favoured an open list.

Mr. Linton: The Belgian list.

Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to converse with his Front Benchers about why they did not adopt a Belgian list. Of course, that was not the Conservative party's proposal; we have been clear all the way about through the fact that we would prefer the election to be fought under the first-past-the-post system.
The Government said in their manifesto that they wanted a proportional representation system. The Liberal Democrats support such a system—they want the Belgian system, as does the hon. Member for Battersea—and the overwhelming majority of Labour Members who have spoken want a PR system and an open list. The Belgian system is available to them; why have the Government said no? They have said no for one reason: they want a closed list. Why do they want a closed list? They want to dictate who is elected as a Labour Member of the European Parliament. They do not want the electorate to choose, and they do not even want Labour party supporters to choose; they want to choose themselves.
As was rightly said in the other place, a choice has to be made between the electorate and the selectorate—the selectorate of the Millbank tower panels, which have chosen the lists for the Labour party. That is the decision that has to be made. The Lords returning the Bill to this place, amended on each occasion, is far from being an affront to democracy; they have done so in pursuance of democracy, because they seek to defend voter choice.
I have read the debates in the Lords, and hon. Members will know that I have attended the debates in the Chamber on each occasion. It is perfectly clear that, on each occasion, the Lords have not been dragooned into going in this direction by the Conservatives. Cross-Bench peers have overwhelmingly chosen to send those amendments back to this House, and the decisions have been made on the balance of the argument. Each time, they have been fed by the simple fact that, in debates in this House, Members of the governing party have been unwilling to support their Front Benchers.
That is what gave the Lords the impetus to send the Bill back amended, and they have been challenging the Government to have the honesty to follow the line of argument that is supported by Labour Members.
From the corner of my eye, I see that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) wants me to give way.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I have been listening to his case with interest. I have much sympathy with what he says about voter choice, but does he agree with two propositions? The first is that the proposed closed-list system is no worse than the first-past-the-post system, which also presents candidates selected by a small number of party members. The second is that the logic of his position must inevitably lead him to suggest that in a Westminster election he should be selected by the entire electorate and should put himself forward with other Conservative candidates, rather than rely on a small selectorate of party members.

Mr. Lansley: Two propositions were put, but they are essentially one. I do not accept either, because the constituency link—this would be true for the European Parliament—on the basis of one member, one seat is wholly to be preferred.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I check this point with the hon. Gentleman, so that people outside the House are clear about what is argued? Is he agreeing with Lord Bethell, who said that, under the Tory proposals, ballot papers would
"carry 50 or more names"
and that an individual elector would have to pick names out of the 50 and tick them off? Is that what he proposes?

Mr. Lansley: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that, first, because the Bill specifies that, under the regulations that are to be made, a party cannot present more candidates than there are places up for election. Secondly, as I read the Bill, it is perfectly possible for the Government to specify that a party should present its candidates, not in an alphabetical or an arbitrary list, but in a list of that party's preference. It is therefore perfectly possible for the electorate to be presented with a party's preferences, but the voters would be able to choose from within that list and not be bound to accept the preference of the party apparatchiks.
The Home Secretary made an absurd point about perverse results and someone from one party being elected although he had fewer votes than someone from another party. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is accurate statistically, but he will not recognise that it is directly the result of proportionality. He has argued in debate after debate that, primarily, people vote on the basis of party—yes, indeed. In a proportional system, that means that people will be elected from that party's list first, rather than elected from another party's list.
What the Home Secretary will not accept—he should listen to this—is that, even within a preference for party, voters may have a preference between individual candidates. That is what it comes down to. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said—this is true for the


electoral system in this country that we are used to—that voters want to be able to choose an individual candidate. That is what the Home Secretary sets out to deny.

Mrs. Laing: It has been fascinating to listen yet again to a debate on the complexities and anomalies of proportional representation systems, as set out by the Home Secretary and other Labour Members, in particular the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). Again, the Home Secretary has advanced excellent arguments for keeping first past the post, although he will not welcome my saying that, and will not admit to it. He knows that he has lost the argument, so he blames our constitutional system, which allows members in another place to revise what we have discussed in this place—our well-trusted and long-standing constitutional system.
We have heard much about closed lists, open lists and individuals. In Epping Forest, we are individuals. I was elected as a Conservative candidate, but I have, unusually, a bit of support from some non-Conservatives. Therefore, it is a pleasure to put forward the view of a party that has no representation in the House.
Labour Members have argued that opposition to the clause is confined mostly to hereditary members of another place. That is not true. Our position on these Benches is supported by a wide range of fair-minded people who believe in and seek to defend democracy: for example, the Epping Forest Democratic Left. The secretary of that august organisation, a Mr. Peter Relph, has written an excellent letter to the West Essex Gazette, an excellent publication, which is known, if not to all hon. Members, certainly to the Home Secretary and to me.
Mr. Peter Relph has written to the editor of my local paper:
Dear Sir
Our Member of Parliament"—
I will leave out the flattering bits—
is to be congratulated on her work with the Electoral Reform Society and other democrats including the majority of the House of Lords who seek to ensure that the new voting procedures for the European Elections to be held next May … will be open, fair and democratic.
He goes on to pay tribute to the Home Secretary, who, as he has acknowledged, was once Mr. Relph's next-door neighbour, or something close to it; I will also leave out the flattering bits about the Home Secretary.
Mr. Relph goes on to say:
The 'closed' list is one of candidates hand selected by an unelected cabal meeting in smoke filled rooms who will ensure that independent minded 'socialist' … personalities … will never be on the ballot paper.
I did not expect to find myself in such agreement with Mr. Relph and the Epping Forest Democratic Left. I do not agree with all that they say, but I respect their right to say it.
Conservative Members have been wondering of what the Home Secretary and his Government are afraid. We have concluded that it is of free thinkers in his party.

Caroline Flint: On free thinking, will the hon. Lady clarify this matter? Will the Conservative party allow its candidates, who I understand you have placed in order of preference, to produce individual literature to put

their case before the voters, or will you insist that all literature for the European elections will be under the Conservative party banner, with the list of candidates in the order that you wish the electorate to vote for them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps I should just say to the hon. Lady that that has nothing to do with me at all.

Mrs. Laing: I hope that the situation that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has described will not be necessary, because I have every hope and confidence that we will fight the European elections next May under a first-past-the-post system.
From the evidence that we have heard tonight, it is obvious that no one who defends democracy can possibly support a system that gives more power to political parties by taking that power away from the people.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Home Secretary would have better spent his time concentrating on the arguments, rather than drawing attention to the forefathers of their Lordships. Irrespective of whether their Lordships were appointed or achieved their peerage by birth, they were not genetically conditioned to vote against the Government. They found themselves in that Division Lobby on the strength of the arguments and not for any other reason. He would have done better to dwell on those arguments.
As I have pointed out before, I have certain base motives for wishing to support the Government on the amendment. I have never believed that the European Parliament was a Parliament at all. To hamper that assembly with an awful electoral system and to let all the frogs that are in the bog hatch out would suit me very well, but representative democracy is more important.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister drew attention several times to the fact that that dreadful voting system is shared by some of our European partners. That is not surprising. Their electoral systems arose after the advent of political parties—political parties organised the people—whereas our system predates the organisation of political parties.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Swayne: I am enjoined to be brief.
We have that rather idiosyncratic system of representative democracy. We have the technology now to do away with representative democracy, to have pure democracy, and to let every voter decide on every issue, yet we persist with a deliberative assembly, where Members representing their constituents make decisions.
That principle is fundamentally undermined by the system that the Home Secretary has brought before us. If we are to be represented by true representatives and not by political parties, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said the previous time that we debated this issue, we must have the ability to get rid of representatives as well as to elect them. That is why it is vital that the list, insofar as we have a list at all, remains an open list.

Mr. Clappison: This has been a good and interesting debate. We are all becoming veterans of these occasions. This is the fourth time, I think, that we have considered


the Lords amendments. We have also debated the matter twice in Committee and once on Report; and we had Second Reading, of course, as well.
I think that this is the first time that more than one Labour Member has spoken in favour of a closed-list system: two out of five have done so. One of the others was indeterminate, and two were against. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is optimistic, but he can hardly claim that the motion is being carried forward on a tidal wave of acclamation.
We began with the principled and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who expressed his principled position, and made it clear that he was going to abstain in the name of democracy. He prefers to stand as an individual, rather than as a cog in a machine.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He said that the arguments were finely balanced. In the end, I think that he came down in favour of the closed list, but I notice that he did not respond to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who asked him whether the motion would be carried on a free vote in the Labour party, if there were one. I do not think that he was able to answer that.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: No.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that he was not a very good Whip, but many others who have heard these debates could come to a different conclusion.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made the point, with which I am inclined to agree, that a safe seat is only safe until one loses it. Many Conservative Members do not intend to come near that experience, but he hardly gave a ringing endorsement of the closed-list system.
I believe that this was the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) had spoken in one of these debates. I do not know how many of them he has attended. In any event, he came out in favour of a closed list. He was worried about the confusion that he believed voters would experience as a result of seeing all those names on the ballot paper—a worry echoed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for earlier proceedings, but I seem to recollect that, early in the Committee stage, we were told that the Government intended the names of all candidates to appear on the ballot paper in any event. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is making comments from a sedentary position. I venture to ask him what will be the feelings of the voters when they look at the ballot paper before casting their votes. Will they be unable to decide who to vote for, or—if there is a closed list—will they feel angry about the fact that the names are there but they are unable to express an individual preference? I think that many voters will want to do that.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) supports the concept of an open list. We finally dragged that out of him the other evening. He was prepared to pick holes in each of the systems involved, but, as an aficionado of electoral reform, he will know that there are eight systems of open-list voting in the European Union. The Government have been willing to pick holes in each and every one of them, and to support the closed-list system that the hon. Gentleman does not support. That is the answer to the questions put by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, will electors be faced with a ballot paper containing between 30 and 40 names, and have to tick the names of those they support?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The names will appear on the ballot paper under the Government's proposal. Electors may feel angry about the fact that they cannot express an individual preference. The hon. Gentleman ought to wonder about what is happening in the other eight countries of the European Union, where this does not seem to have constituted an insurmountable problem. Eight countries have been able to operate an open-list system.
We have heard some very good speeches from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has been an assiduous attender of these debates, and has constantly warned of the danger of centralised control. Another excellent speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who, as he pointed out, has been another assiduous attender. He rightly drew attention to the danger of dictatorial Government control.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), in a short but excellent speech, spoke up for the rights of the individual. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made a colourful and passionate speech, in which he set out his principled view, and stood up for the rights of his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) drew attention, quite fairly, to the wide support for the open-list system, which extends as far as the Epping Forest Popular Front.
In the Home Secretary's speech—and at Prime Minister's Question Time today, from the Liberal Democrats and, I think, from the Prime Minister at one point—we heard a suggestion that this was all being got up by the Opposition. On Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning, I heard the Home Secretary use the words "manufactured" and "synthetic" about our position. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Workington is heckling from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he was present for the Second Reading debate nearly a year ago, and it is against my better judgment to refer to what was said in the past, but we drew attention then to the defects of the closed list. We pressed the Home Secretary, and made abundantly clear our opposition to closed lists in principle.
6.45 pm
The strange thing is that the Home Secretary said then that he was prepared to listen to the arguments. He summed up the arguments on both sides. He expressed


a preference for a closed list, but he said that there were arguments on both sides. He said of the possible alternative—which he later rejected—
As with any other system, there are arguments both ways. The modification of what we propose in the Bill would provide some direct voter preference and may assuage the concerns even of the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 301, c.814.]
Why, we ask now, are the Government so keen to nail their colours to the mast of the closed list? They said then that they at least had an open mind, and were prepared to listen to representations. As we know, no representations were forthcoming in favour of the closed list. If the Home Secretary had wanted to adopt the Belgian list system, at least he would have been able to make the Liberal Democrats feel happy. The Liberal Democrats have been in favour of an open list, but have not been prepared to vote for it.

Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: No. Time is short. I know what the hon. Gentleman wants to say, and I have already responded to his point. He should read the report of our last debate. That is another advantage of debating this matter on so many occasions.
We maintained our opposition to the closed-list system throughout the Committee, and on Report. In Committee, we said—commenting on what the Home Secretary had said—that we thought the situation remained
as unsatisfactory as it was on Second Reading. We believe that a closed list system is a bad system. That one word that has been used to describe it is degrading. That is appropriate. It will not get our support in any circumstances."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 524.]
That continues to be our position, which we have maintained throughout our proceedings. We are against the closed list, and maintain a principled opposition to it. There is nothing manufactured or synthetic about our views.
What I suggest is manufactured and synthetic is the rage that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have sought to whip up about hereditary peers. Who can blame hereditary peers, or any other peers, for taking the view they took? Cross Benchers have always voted against the closed list by an overwhelming majority, and many other groups and individuals have made representations against it, including the Electoral Reform Society and Charter 88.
This is a rotten system. We agree strongly with the views expressed by Lord Shore of Stepney, who clarified the issue when he said:
The issue is about the open list against the closed list. It is about an open democratic list against a closed party management list. It is about accountability to the electorate, to the voters, against accountability to a party committee—what we are now officially informed is a joint panel of regional representatives and members of the party's ruling National Executive Committee. It is indeed—I repeat the words I used on the previous occasion—the electorate versus the selectorate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 851.]
That is the issue that remains at the end of all these debates: the right of an individual voter to make a choice, and the opportunity for an MEP to make his case before his constituents and win the support of his electors, whether they are in a constituency or a region. It is about

the opportunity for an MEP to represent the interests of his constituency, or his region, rather than the diktat of central party control.
We think that the system imposed by the Government is riddled with opportunities for cronyism and centralised party control. It is the system that is the most favourable to the bosses in the larger parties in any country in Europe. The Prime Minister has said that other countries in Europe use a closed list. That is true: some use it, but on a national rather than a regional system. The system that the Government are inflicting on us is more centralised and more party-controlled than any other system in Europe. It is bad for voters, bad for individual MEPs and bad for democracy in this country. We have said that we will not support it, and we maintain that position. There is a principle at stake, and we will adhere to it.

Mr. George Howarth: We are now debating Lords amendments to the Bill for the fifth time. I believe that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has taken part in four of the debates. I must tell him that my affection for him grows in inverse proportion to my comprehension of what he can possibly be talking about.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and his colleagues maintain the pretence that the other place is simply carrying out its proper function as a revising Chamber. Those who continue to advance that argument are either naive—and I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not—or disingenuous. The continuing obstruction of the Bill—as Lord Williams of Mostyn made clear yesterday, as did Lord Callaghan: I was at the Bar of the House of Lords, and heard his speech—has gone beyond any legitimate function for a second Chamber. Let us make no mistake: the Lords are now involved in a highly party political game, although I suspect that many of them only dimly perceive it.
Conservative Members—most prominently, both today and in previous debates, the hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed)—would like to create the impression that Labour Members have been dragooned into supporting the Government on the issue. Any Government—the current Government no less than any of our recent predecessors—will defend legislation by using the whipping system, especially when, as in this case, they are delivering a manifesto promise. I make no apology for that.
Conservative Members like to present themselves as a happy band of amiable idealists, motivated simply by sincere constitutional concern. However, they have defended to the last ditch—or perhaps to the next-to-last ditch—the principle of a voting system that could allow the election of a candidate receiving fewer votes than those attracted by the most popular candidate.
In a speech to the House, on 3 March 1845, Disraeli said:
The Conservative Government has always been an organised hypocrisy.
Now, 150 years later, we know that a Conservative Opposition also can be an organised hypocrisy.
Opposition Front Benchers simply will not admit that many of their own Back Benchers, in both the House and another place, concede privately not only that they are unhappy about events but that they are afraid to voice


those concerns—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh. Several Conservative Members have conceded privately to me, and to others, that they are afraid of letting the Euro-sceptic genie out of the bottle. That is what they are afraid of.
We are witnessing an organised hypocrisy in sharp focus, combining the forces of the unelected and the unelectable, who are pitting themselves against the House of Commons and the Government, to try to defeat nothing more than a sensible piece of democratic modernisation.
Today, for the fifth time, the House will by an overwhelming majority reject the Lords amendments. I ask the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and other Conservative Members by what right they and the hereditary peers in the other place combine to defy—

Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way; I was in the middle of a sentence.
By what right do they and hereditary peers combine to defy the will of a democratically elected House of Commons? There is no such right, save their own squalid attempts—for political purposes; they are not issues of great principle—to thwart the Bill and this place.

Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let us see them for what they truly are: a creaking and pathetic relic of another age. They are fooling no one. On this Bill, Conservative Members have proved themselves to be out of time, out of place and out of office. It is now abundantly clear that they will stay so for a very long time.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 133.

Division No. 379]
[6.53 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Best, Harold


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blackman, Liz


Allan, Richard
Blears, Ms Hazel


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Badley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brake, Tom


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brand, Dr Peter


Atkins, Charlotte
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Austin, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Baker, Norman
Browne, Desmond


Ballard, Jackie
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony
Burgon, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Burstow, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beard, Nigel
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coborn,  Richard


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)





Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chidgey, David
Grocott, Bruce


Church, Ms Judith
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harmon, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cotter, Brian
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crausby, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


(Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Keetch, Paul


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kirkwood, Archy


Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Don (Bath)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foulkes, George
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Livsey, Richard


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum






McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sarwar, Mohammad


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mallaber, Judy
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Milburn, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
(Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, Bill
Temple-Morris, peter


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Öpik, Lembit
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Organ, Mrs Diana
Touhig, Don


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Plaskitt, James
Tyler, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg
Wallace, James


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Webb, Steve


Prosser, Gwyn
White, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Radice, Giles
(Swansea W)


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Raynsford, Nick
Willis, Phil


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooker, Jeff
Woolas, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Keith Hill and


Salter, Martin
Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surry)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael


Amess, David
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James





Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Baldry, Tony
Lindington, David


Beggs, Roy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Luff, Peter


Blunt, Crispin
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Madel, Sir David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Maples, John


Butterfill, John
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
May, Mrs Theresa


(Chipping Barnet)
Moss, Malcolm


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clappison, James
Norman, Archie


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Page, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Pickles, Eric


(Rushcliffe)
Prior, David


Collins, Tim
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Robathan, Andrew


Cran, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ruffley, David


Evans, Nigel
St Aubyn, Nick


Fabricant, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard
Shepherd, Richard


Forsythe, Clifford
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Spring, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gill, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Streeter, Gary


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Syms, Robert


Green, Damian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Greenway, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hunter, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Willetts, David


Key, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Woodward, Shaun


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Yeo, Tim


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Stephen Day and


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the Order [17th July] relating to the Northern Ireland Bill (Programme) be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings.
2.—( l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith with respect to the Lords Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question. That this House agrees with the Lords in those Amendments.
(8) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(9) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(10) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(11) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental

3. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting.
4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments for any part of the period of four hours after the commencement of the proceedings which falls after Ten o'clock.

I acknowledge that this is an unusual Bill, proceeding to an unusual timetable. However, I believe that the Bill and the manner of its passing reflect the wishes of the majority of hon. Members, although 1 know that some have grave doubts about the timetable and the Bill—doubts that we all respect. The dilemma that the Government faced before the summer was that, if we were to meet the target of having the Bill ready to come into effect at the end of January, there was no opportunity for extensive consultation before it was introduced. Had we had such consultation, we should not have been able to put the Bill to the House in this Session.

I believe that we were right to introduce the Bill before the summer. The Government have done all that we can to make up for the adverse consequences of the timetable. The main amendments before us reflect our undertaking on Third Reading to reflect and consult further. We took note of points made in debates here before the summer, along with those made in another place since then. We have held the intensive consultations that we promised with the Northern Ireland parties, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which have continued through a long series of meetings, in which I personally have been involved.

We have also had many meetings with others. We have been ready, of course, to meet all interested Members, whether they supported the agreement or opposed it. We have also met the representatives of many outside interests. All the most significant amendments that we propose today have therefore, as I promised the House, been the subject of consultation with the key Northern Ireland parties, including those represented here, and with hon. Members from parties in Great Britain.

I believe that, as a result of our consultations, we have a much better Bill, which is a more faithful reflection of the agreement. We have augmented its provisions substantially in the areas of human rights and equality, and in strands 2 and 3 in particular. There are also, inevitably in so complex a Bill, many technical adjustments, so we have many drafting amendments made in the other place to deal with. The fundamentals of the Bill, however, are unchanged.

Although there are a good many amendments before us, the key ones will be widely familiar among hon. Members who take an interest in Northern Ireland affairs. Members who are interested will also have read closely the reports of debates in another place, and I hope that the note about the amendments that I made available last week may have been of some help to the House.

This Session has been significantly prolonged by the proceedings on the Bill. Both Houses have put themselves out considerably to deal with legislation that is hugely significant in the history of Northern Ireland. We are now at the end of the Session, and time is very limited—and because of our previous business today, we are all aware that there are still other pressing matters, which are also of great concern to hon. Members, to be cleared up.

We therefore believe that it is right to timetable the present stage of the Bill, so as to give the House an opportunity to pronounce on the Lords amendments, but also to permit other business of interest to the House to be properly dealt with.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I could not go along with the Minister when he said that everything possible had been done to consult people and give some basis of democracy for the presentation of the Bill. Amazingly, about 450 amendments have been made to it since it left the House in the summer. That must be a record.
Now that we have come here tonight to speak of those matters, it is interesting to see that the First Minister designate and his deputy, although they are both Members of this House, are not even present. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party is not here either. That shows that everything has already been decided.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am here.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is here, and he is worth an army—regiments, battalions and all—on his own.
I am simply drawing attention to the fact that everything has already been concluded. We all know that what the Government want will take place no matter what arguments are advanced; it is a foregone conclusion. As a representative from Northern Ireland, I must protest at the way in which the issue has been managed. If the Government had dealt with the future of any other part of the United Kingdom, over such an important matter as devolved government, as they are dealing with the future of Northern Ireland and its people, Members representing other localities would class it as an outrageous insult to be treated in that fashion.
Of course we understand about the timetable, but it is the result of something of which the House should have taken cognisance. Everybody knew that there would be a row about the elections to the European Parliament. I have been a Member of that Parliament, and I would like to have seen how the Labour Members from Strasbourg would have voted here tonight. I have had their ear for the past three months, and they have been telling me how they feel about the way in which things have been going. A row has been brewing.
Why should Northern Ireland suffer because of that? Why should Northern Ireland's representatives not have the opportunity to deal with matters on which we have made representations? The Minister may have had many meetings with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister designate, but he has not had many meetings with the parties. At least, if he has had as many with other parties as he has had with my party, he will not have had to go to too many meetings. There was one discussion on one simple issue, then that was left, and when we came back we had a discussion on other issues.
The Minister wrote to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), about an
unprecedented and far reaching consultation process".
I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches occupied by Members from Northern Ireland tonight would agree with that.
There are many points to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. The issue most commonly discussed in Northern Ireland is the fact that the Prime Minister said that if people were not satisfied, and he was not satisfied, with what was happening, and legislation was introduced, the problems would be dealt with in that legislation.
We all know about the five pledges, the substantial points, that the Prime Minister made. I notice that not one of those has been reinforced. Everybody in Northern Ireland knows that it was because of those promises that the result of the referendum turned out as it did. However, that result was undermined after the elections, in which 28 Unionist Members who opposed the system were elected, and only 28 who voted with the First Minister designate and his deputy. That shows plainly that there was opposition to what was taking place.
There are many issues affecting people in Northern Ireland at the moment. What will the Minister say about the prisoner releases? When we read in the paper that someone sentenced to 1,000 years for multiple murder is out in 16 years, we are alarmed about the future moral situation in our country. Time should have been given for a proper debate on that issue.
What about decommissioning? We have just heard from one of the leaders of Sinn Fein that that will never take place until there is a united Ireland—so it is clear that there will be no movement on that issue.
I have already spoken about the Prime Minister's pledges, but there are many other matters in the Bill that need to be considered. Of course, many amendments have been made to deal with some of the factors, but I must make the point that we are setting in place a system of government that will stay there until the next election. So far as I can see, there can be no change, and the Bill copper-fastens the First Minister and his deputy in place.
We were told that there would be no cherry-picking of the agreement, but anyone who reads the document will notice that there has been not only cherry-picking but the planting of a few more cherry trees that bear a different type of fruit. I see the Minister smiling, because he knows that that is only too true.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the department of the centre? Will it be based on a similar department in Downing street? Has this proved to be so good that the Government have decided that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) need such a system?
The tragedy is that we have an Assembly that is not meeting and is not having Committee meetings. Committees could have been handling cross-border matters, the civic forum and education, but all those have been relegated by the two Ministers to nice little ad hoc Committees at which those who are opposed to the agreement have no say. We believe that those matters should be discussed in the Assembly, but they are not being discussed.
Much was said about the d'Hondt appointment of department chiefs, and it was argued that that was the only way. Why is there to be a departure from the d'Hondt rule when it comes to the appointment of assistant Ministers, or Ministers of State—or whatever they are to be called? It will not matter what the electorate say—the First Minister designate and his deputy will appoint those Ministers. That is a radical departure from the agreement, and it is totally out of order. All appointments will rest on the electoral strength distributed by the d'Hondt method—except junior Ministers. That will bring in the power of patronage, and the First Minister designate and his deputy will have total power.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must


remind him—as he would wish to keep in order—that we are discussing a programme motion, which does not provide a platform for a mini-Second Reading debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not trying to make a Second Reading speech. I am saying that these matters need to be argued and that we need time to argue them. I have not sat in this House for 30 years without becoming aware of the point that you are making, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am arguing, legitimately, that these matters depart from the agreement and from statements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. As those departures have occurred, we should have time to debate them. Therefore, why should we be limited? That is a good argument.
I must mention the matters that concern the people of Northern Ireland, who want their public representatives to have a forum in which they can be discussed. The Assembly is not meeting to discuss the issues, and never had a real discussion on any of them. At the first meeting of the Assembly, a resolution was passed that the two Ministers should have the opportunity to consult on two issues—cross-border matters and the civic forum. Instead, the two Ministers have not produced a report on those matters, but have gone into other areas—including education, where they have made some vivid changes from documents that I have in my possession.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend told the House that he has been a Member here for 30 years. Can he remember in all that time a worse piece of proposed legislation than this? Is it not a dog's breakfast of a Bill? It brings discredit to the Government, to this House and to the whole democratic process.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I might have an even more picturesque description of the Bill than a dog's breakfast, but I will not get into that. I agree fully with my hon. Friend. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you have not called me to order, so you must think that I am now in order. I will now proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I, too, have been in the House for a considerable number of years, and the hon. Gentleman and I might agree that there is a narrower focus for a programme motion. I hope that he would accept the narrower interpretation, rather than the wider interpretation on which I thought he was embarked.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am on narrow ground and, unfortunately, it is getting narrower. If the Ministers had had any more time to make more than a dog's breakfast of the Bill, I do not know what we would have called it.
Matters of grave concern to the people of Northern Ireland need to be elucidated and debated, but we will not have time. The amendment paper is nearly as big as the Bill itself. The amendments are presented to us tonight, and we are supposed to nod our heads. However, we will not be nodding our heads. We will use every minute that is given to us by the House for a thorough and proper discussion of the matters.
It would suit me to say, "What is the use?" and to go home, but I am a democrat, and this is the only forum that the elected people of Northern Ireland have at the

moment. It is only right that we discuss the matters and bring them to the attention of the House. It may look to others to be a useless exercise but, as democrats, this is what we have been called to do.
I am glad that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, realise that I am in order. I am pleased about that, and I will try to the best of my ability to keep in order.
Human rights matters—which may be of interest to all sections of the House—need to be discussed fully, but there will be very little time to discuss anything at all. I suppose that most people in the House do not even know what this is about—perhaps two or three have some vague idea. We have a mass of amendments from another place, and a mass of amendments passed through the other place which were tabled by the Government.
I believed that we were to get rid of Orders in Council. The House should look at clauses 71 and 72 and ask itself some questions. The Bill is cementing the role of Dublin in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and guarantees a place for IRA-Sinn Fein at the very heart of the Government.
We have had an interesting week, in which we have seen the attitude of the Prime Minister to Saddam Hussein. However, terrorists in Northern Ireland—a bit closer to home—tried to kill the whole British Government on one occasion, but a different attitude is being taken to them. The Prime Minister is not saying that it is the Government's business to put those people out of business—it is to put them in government.
The Government may not like it, but we have to discuss and dispute this matter. Therefore, I oppose the guillotine. It is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland to tell their representatives that the debate is to be guillotined and that they will not be given an opportunity to discuss matters that have taken many hours to discuss elsewhere.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I must start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and his colleagues on the degree with which they have listened to representations made to them by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by many parties in Northern Ireland, and for the careful consideration that they have given those representations, some of which appear in the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.
The Bill was prepared in considerable haste after the passing of the Good Friday agreement, which meant that many matters had to be fleshed out in another place and we could refer to them only in passing when the Bill was before this House before the recess. I for one acknowledge the progress that has been made and very much welcome it. However, I hope that we will have sufficient time to discuss some matters about which I am still concerned. We are debating the programme motion, and I shall describe the areas on which we should have some sort of debate.
One matter that we should discuss is the limitation that my noble Friend, Lord Williams of Mostyn, put on the powers of the European Commission on Human Rights to have referred to it Westminster legislation concerning matters in Northern Ireland. I could deal with that matter and the arguments that surround it at greater length. It is a matter to which we should pay attention. Secondly,


we should pay attention to the commission's right to subpoena witnesses and to require discovery of documents.
Thirdly, we should consider the most iniquitous matter. I regret having to use such a word, but that is what I feel about what the Government are doing in seeking to get around the Tinnelly case. It is outrageous that people should not know the facts on which their livelihoods and careers are to be jeopardised, and that those should be secret. It is wrong that counsel should be appointed by the accusor—in this case, the Government—but that they should have no responsibility to the applicant or show any care towards them. It is also wrong that people should not be able to have an advocate of their choice to represent them at all times.
In treason cases and cases held in camera, people know the evidence that is being used against them. This Bill would deny people that right. It is certain to cause considerable worry among those at the Bar, and I hope that we will have time to discuss the matter, given the programme laid down. If we do not have time, I have at least made my feelings known on the matter and we could consider it in more detail if we get that far in the Bill.
To return to my starting point, in spite of some of the problems that I still have with the Bill, I recognise that the Government have moved considerably to tidy it up, expand it and do something about the human rights provisions and the various matters to which we drew their attention in conflict, or which were not fully implementing what was contained in the Belfast agreement. We should recognise that fact and welcome it. I think that I am entitled to spend much of my time in the 45 minutes allowed for this brief debate in congratulating the Government and in coming forward to meet them. They have done a great deal, and we applaud them for it.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I do not suppose that anyone who heard the Minister introduce the Bill a few moments ago has ever heard someone at the Dispatch Box do so with less enthusiasm and more apologetically, and rightly so.
It is no secret that I am normally coming from a different direction from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as regards the Assembly, but on this occasion, I find myself entirely at one with him about the way in which the Bill is being handled.
It is astonishing that a Bill that requires us to consider about 420 amendments, according to my quick count, at this stage could have been brought before the House in the first place. It is all very well for the Minister to say that that is an indication of the extent to which he has listened to representations. The base from which those have had to be made must have been pretty low to require 420 amendments, even when one includes those of a technical nature. Most of us will find that disheartening and frustrating, given our efforts to move the political process forward in Northern Ireland.
How can we possibly consider seriously that number of amendments in four hours, however they are grouped? It is an impossibility, and it shows a disregard for the interests of Northern Ireland.
Last night, when I spoke in the debate on prisoners, I said that it was a pity that the Government had not displayed the same enthusiasm for the implementation of

the Stormont agreement as it had displayed for its achievement and putting it in place. I can do no better than repeat that remark this evening and suggest that not only this Government, but the Government of the Irish Republic have shown disregard for the anxiety of the greater number of people in Northern Ireland in the manner in which they have gone about the business of implementing what is, for all of us, a difficult and complex agreement.
The Minister probably knows the pressures facing my local hospital at the moment. I have to return home this evening to my constituency, so I hope that he will accept my apology as I will not be here for his reply. In his response to the points that I and others have made about the time limit set aside for consideration of the Bill at this stage, I hope that he will also find an opportunity to point out to us where we stand as regards the Prime Minister's obligation to the leader of my party on 13 May—I raised this point last night and did not receive a response. The Prime Minister said:
Yes— I intend to make it clear that the commitment and the obligations in the agreement must all be fulfilled and that no one can choose to fulfil some part of the agreement and not others.— [Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 365.]
It is a matter of grave disquiet to all of us that it appears that the Government have not been assiduous in ensuring that the Prime Minister's guarantee, which was given to the House at the Dispatch Box, is being honoured as it should be and in the spirit in which it should be.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I appreciate the exigencies that require him to return home, but will he say whether he would have voted against the motion and other measures if he had remained?

Mr. Maginnis: Sometimes I regret giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The sophistry that he brings to the debate is typical of him.
The confidence of people in Northern Ireland—the very people on whom we depend to make the process work—is being undermined by the haphazard way in which the Bill has been presented to the House. My party most certainly cannot concur with the proposal to guillotine debate.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I very much welcome the Bill as amended by the other place. The number of amendments reflects the undertakings of the Minister and his colleagues to consult widely in Northern Ireland, among both the political parties and the many other community bodies. I am pleased that he has consulted so widely and so well that the Bill, as amended, will correctly interpret the Good Friday agreement not only in words, but in spirit.
The Bill is not a dog's dinner, but a beano; it is a feast to replace the democratic deficit that has existed in Northern Ireland for many years. The Unionist parties constantly acknowledged that democratic deficit, but now that we have the opportunity to establish the most democratic, most consultative and most all-inclusive Assembly, the Bill is rejected. That is a great pity.
The many amendments, some of them substantive, relate to matters that were signalled to the Minister by the House; the Minister has responded to those concerns over


the summer. One or two items require attention, especially the procedures of the Equality Commission and the powers and attributes of the Human Rights Commission. The issue of security certificates is a particular concern for me—the Tinnelly company, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned, was based in my constituency, and suffered between 1988 and last summer in trying to achieve justice.
So that other hon. Members can participate in and deal with the matters that I mentioned in the main debates, I conclude by once again thanking the Minister and his colleagues for the widespread consultation and for responding to the requests from all the parties in the debates in July. I believe that the concerns that were expressed are faithfully and fully reflected in the amendments that were made in another place.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The Bill is probably the most important piece of constitutional legislation on Northern Ireland for almost 80 years. It is placed before the House this evening with more than 400 amendments—curiously enough, those amendments were made by the other place, that much derided Chamber that people think acts undemocratically. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has described the Bill as a dog's breakfast, and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has called it a beano. The Beano is a comic, and the Bill certainly has many comic features.
I want to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Bill is built on the Belfast agreement. That agreement was endorsed in a referendum that was conducted in a manner that would not have met Lord Neill's requirements and would have been declared illegal in the Republic of Ireland, which has its own legislation on such matters. However, the agreement was endorsed largely because it was believed that, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, pledges given by the Prime Minister would be reflected in the legislation.
None of those pledges has been honoured. People who have committed the most hideous and serious crimes have been released. Promises have been made to the political wings of terror—to parties that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland described as inextricably entwined with terrorism. That includes a party that may be allotted two seats on the Executive under the d'Hondt principles.
The Bill will create allegedly democratic institutions for Northern Ireland by placing on the Executive political representatives of an organisation that declares: "Unless the demands of our political representatives are met, we reserve the right to use political violence to achieve their objectives. We are determined to retain the weaponry that will enable us to do so."
Against that background, it is vital that all aspects of the Bill can be debated in the greatest possible detail. However, we have been allowed only four hours. Given my professional experience in reading legal documents, I have no hesitation in saying—I think that all hon. Members would agree, if they were truly honest with themselves—that it is impossible to have any real discussion or analysis of the amendments in that time.
We should not dismiss the amendments as purely technical, or say that they are only about housekeeping. Many of them are central to the future of democratic and constitutional government in Northern Ireland. They are about the government of two communities and, if they are to be successful, they need to be treated with great sensitivity and wisdom. The fact that they are being dispatched in four hours is a democratic and constitutional disgrace.
In Northern Ireland, we are familiar with being treated as people in no other part of the United Kingdom would be treated. In some of our prisons, it is as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum. A recent report by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons highlighted the totally unacceptable way in which those prisons were organised. The Maze prison was Northern Ireland in microcosm.
The Bill ignores entirely the fact that parties that are to be in government continue to be in charge of organisations that murder and injure people and destroy property. If that is democracy, it is of a very curious kind, but we shall have only four hours to discuss the Bill, and that is an even bigger disfigurement of the democratic process.

Judy Mallaber: I am perplexed by Unionist Members' arguments. We are here to discuss amendments to a Bill that seeks to implement an agreement that was discussed at length and endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. The question before us is whether the Bill properly implements that agreement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are discussing whether the time to debate the matter should be limited. We are not dealing with the matter itself, and the hon. Lady should know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Lady will have heard him.

Judy Mallaber: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that the debate is much narrower than was apparent from Unionist Members' contributions.
I have been incredibly impressed by the way in which the Minister has been prepared to listen to everybody and has been extremely patient in considering amendments arising from our previous debates. He has sought to take on board people's views on whether the agreement is properly implemented in the legislation. There has been considerable discussion, and I do not know of anyone who has sought a meeting with him to discuss the amendments who has not been heard. To suggest that there has not been proper discussion of the agreement, the Bill and all the amendments is simply not correct.
The four hours before us are not meant to be a time in which to raise yet again a whole lot of issues that are not in the Bill and not covered in the amendments. The question before us is, narrowly, whether four hours is sufficient time to discuss amendments that have already been considered in great detail.
People on all sides of the argument have had the opportunity to make their views known to the Minister, and I want to place on record my appreciation of the time that has been given to discussing the parts about which I


have been concerned; if my hon. Friend has given so much time to those areas that I know of, I am sure that he must have given considerable time to all the other areas.
We have enough time for a discussion tonight. I am not trying to widen the debate: that was done by some Unionist Members who have tried to introduce a range of subjects that are not relevant to our discussion in the next four hours. I support the motion.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I, too, offer my compliments to Ministers.
Representatives of voluntary associations have put the point to me over and over again that the civic forum will need to be given adequate resources if it is not to become a talking shop —

It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [17 July].

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 6.

Division No. 380]
[7.53 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Clapham Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Lynda


Allen, Graham
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clwyd, Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Best, Harold
(Copeland)


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dafis, Cynog


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davidson, Ian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burden, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burgon, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Burstow, Paul
Dean, Mrs  Janet


Butler, Mrs Christine
Denham, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Drew, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Cann, Jamie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caplin, Ivor
Edwards, Huw


Caton, Martin
Efford, Clive





Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Fearn, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Linton Martin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foulkes, George
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


Gardiner, Barry
McDonnell, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McGrady, Eddie


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara Kevin


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Gunnell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meale, Alan


Hancock, Mike
Merron, Gillian


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Healey, John
Milburn, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mitchell, Austin


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moffatt, Laura


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hesford, Stephen
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hill, Keith
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin Chris


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Home Robertson, John
Oaten, Mark


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hope, Phil
Olner, Bill


Hopkins, Kelvin
Öpik, Lembit


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howells, Dr Kim
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Lindsay
Perham, Ms Linda


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L


Humble, Mrs Joan
Plaskitt, James


Hurst, Alan
Pollard, Kerry


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pound, Stephen


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Primarolo, Dawn


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Purchase, ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rendel, David


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooney, Terry


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rowlands, Ted


Kemp, Fraser
Roy, Frank


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ruane, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Kidney, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ryan, Ms Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Salter, Martin


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sanders, Adrian


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sarwar, Mohammad


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Lawernce, Ms Jackie
Sedgemore, Brian






Shaw, Jonathan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Sheerman, Barry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Timms, Stephen


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Singh, Marsha
Trickett, Jon


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Tyler, Paul


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Webb, Steve


Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
(Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winnick, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wyatt, Derek


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


(Dewsbury)
Mr. David Hanson and


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Forsythe, Clifford



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order [17th July] relating to the Northern Ireland Bill (Programme) be supplemented as follows-

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings.
2—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith with respect to the Lords Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in those Amendments.
(8) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(9) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(10) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(11) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental

3. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting.
4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments for any part of the period of four hours after the commencement of the proceedings which falls after Ten o'clock.

Northern Ireland Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Lord Chancellor under the Act.
The second money resolution is required as a result of changes made to the Bill since it left the House that make the Lord Chancellor liable to incur certain expenditure. The Lord Chancellor was not covered by the original money resolution made when the Bill was first introduced here.
Expenditure may be incurred in two discrete areas, the first of which relates to the tribunal which will be set up under the Bill to consider appeals against national security certificates. Provision has been made in amendment No. 348 for the payment of remuneration, allowances, pensions and gratuities to members of the tribunal, and compensation to former members in special circumstances. The amendment also provides for the payment of remuneration and expenses to the tribunal's staff and others employed by the tribunal. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the amendment later.
Provision has been made in Lords amendment No. 347 for the second area of expenditure, which is the payment of the legal fees that may be incurred by a defendant in criminal proceedings in which a devolution issue arises and for which he is granted legal aid. The additions to the cost of the Bill are both modest and necessary, and I hope that the House will support the resolution.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Minister has given no indication of the actual cost that is likely to be incurred in respect of the tribunal. I should be grateful if he did so.
I also ask him to consider whether we want to finance an organisation where the applicant will not see the evidence on which a decision about his future has been based; the tribunal can sit in secret and neither he nor his legal representative will be present. A barrister may be appointed from the Northern Ireland Bar to represent him, but that barrister will have no duty of care whatsoever to the person whom he is supposed to represent, and will have limitations placed on what information he may or may not give to the person whom he is supposed to represent; and if the certificate is upheld, it shall be conclusive proof of everything it contains.
Do we in this House really want to vote money for such a tribunal? I should have thought it a matter about which Members of Parliament who are also members of the legal profession would be somewhat concerned. It would appear that certain members of the Northern Ireland Bar—those who are regarded as the good, the just and the perfect—will be put on a separate panel, from which the Attorney-General will choose people to represent applicants; whereas others will not, and even though they are representing a client they will not be allowed to sit in on the tribunal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell us something about those former members of the tribunal to whom he referred?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have calculated the cost of the component parts of the legislation? For example, what do they envisage will be the likely cost of the north-south bodies, the implementation bodies and the British-Irish Council? Do they think it sensible to have junior Ministers at additional cost, when the Bill already allows for up to 10 Ministers to deal with the existing six Departments in Northern Ireland? Those appear to be matters of expenditure which, had the Government been left to deal with Northern Ireland on their own, they would have told us were not sensible or prudent.
If the Minister has quantified the expenditure in each of those areas, can he justify it?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a point about the principle behind the tribunal and I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss that important matter in greater detail. I know that he is especially concerned. He asked specifically about the costs of the tribunal, but those are hard to establish because they will be driven by the number of cases that the tribunal handles every year. We anticipate two cases per year, at an average cost of £11,500. I said that the costs are likely to be modest, but they will be determined by events. Like everything else that the Government do, we have to make our best assessment; if there are more cases, they will have to be funded.

Mr. McNamara: Did my hon. Friend give an estimate of £11,500 for two cases, which would be £5,750 a case? I may have misheard him.

Mr. Ingram: I said that the cost had been estimated at £11,500 per case, but if I have misled my hon. Friend I am sorry. The cost will be driven by the number of cases, and it may escalate or it may be zero, if there are no cases.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the question of former members of the tribunal. Our proposals are modelled on the approach to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and the order allows contributions to be made to pensions. That will give us flexibility to deal with special circumstances, but those costs are also likely to be modest.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised issues outwith the terms of the order. I do not know whether he was at the Assembly meeting last week, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State presented the budget. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it was an important meeting, and it is a matter of regret that he did not hear the full explanation given by my hon. Friend of the budget and the costs that will devolve to the new Assembly.
Indications were given in the report to the Assembly of the costs that would fall on it as a consequence of some of the new bodies that will arise from the agreement. Costs relating to the British-lrish Council will be met by the two Governments, but they will be modest, given the frequency and length of the meetings. Those costs are a necessary component of meeting the Government's obligations under the agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 4

TRANSFERRED, EXCEPTED AND RESERVED MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
(""excepted matter" means any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 2;
reserved matter" means any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 3;
transferred matter" means any matter which is not an excepted or reserved matter.")

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 56 and 222 to 270.

Mr. Murphy: Without touching on the time allowed for the amendments, which was properly dealt with in a previous debate, I wish to touch on the nature of the amendments that the House will consider in the next few hours. Most of them are drafting or technical amendments, and I shall refer to them in detail shortly.
We will deal with three types of amendment tonight. Some are essentially technical. It was necessary that the other place dealt with the changes because the Bill was drawn up in haste. Indeed, I pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen and to all those involved in drawing up the legislation in such a short time.
The Bill was designed to enact an agreement and, inevitably, detailed, technical amendments were necessary because it was drafted in such a short time. Amendments came before the House and the other place earlier in the Bill's progress and hon. Members who were present for those debates will recall that my ministerial colleagues and I said that they would be necessary. This Session has lasted as long as it has because of the nature of that parliamentary process and the significance that the House of Commons attaches to the agreement.
The second type of amendments relate specifically to the points made during the Bill's passage through Parliament. Members on both sides of the House withdrew amendments on the basis that the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues and I would think again. We reflected on the points that had been made, and then Lord Dubs introduced amendments in the other place. Many of the amendments therefore result from representations made to the Government by hon. Members and others.
The third type of amendments arise as a direct result of consultation. Some thought that the consultation was not adequate, and others have kindly said that they thought it was. One cannot satisfy all the people all the time, but hon. Members will understand that my door was always open; and if any hon. Members wished to discuss with me any issue arising from the Bill, they were able to do so. Many meetings were held with parties, hon. Members

and others who expressed an interest in the Bill. In 11 years in the House, I have never experienced a similar level of consultation. Indeed, although we had consultation over the Scottish and Welsh legislation, it was not the same as on the Bill for Northern Ireland, because it enacts the agreement.
In the end, the Government had to decide on the form that the amendments would take, and we have sometimes pleased some people and sometimes displeased them. If there was no clear sign in the agreement, we had to try to work out whether we could have obtained a consensus on a particular issue had the talks continued. That was sometimes difficult to discover. In many cases, and sometimes on controversial issues, there was unanimity, and I shall list those cases as I go through the amendments before us. I shall tell the House on which amendments every party in Northern Ireland that wished to consult with me agreed. Sometimes, some parties disagreed, but that was not always the case—it is important to put that on record because of the large number of amendments. I sat for several years on the shadow Front Bench, and I should have been the first to exactly the opposite if I had thought that that was not so. We are reflecting concerns as far as we can.
Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment, which makes it clear that any matters may be transferred out of schedule 3, which lists reserved matters, that fall within the description given there. Amendment No. 56 creates a new clause out of the old clause 20(4)(b), the drafting of which was defective. Amendments Nos. 222 to 270 bear on schedules 2 and 3. We have had to do some tidying up of those schedules, and a number of the amendments are purely drafting or technical points, or are designed to clarify matters that were perhaps open to uncertainty.
Other amendments add new matters to the schedules, including new subjects such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland and "assisted areas" under the Industrial Development Act 1982. In other cases, we have had to bring some descriptions up to date, including those of international relations, broadcasting and telecommunications, including the internet. In one or two other cases, it has made sense to move matters from one category into another. For example, we thought it right to move the regulation of activities in outer space from the reserved to the excepted category. That was not, of course, a matter much discussed in the agreement or at the talks.
Amendments Nos. 242 and 270 rationalise the way in which the provisions of the Bill are safeguarded against modification by the Assembly. Most of the amendments are technical.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I agree with the Minister, and I congratulate him on the extraordinary degree of consultation that has taken place. I am not able to speak for other parties, but the Liberal Democrats thank the Government for being genuinely willing to listen. More to the point, they were willing to act on at least some of the concerns that we raised, and that is a testament to the Minister's genuine willingness to achieve results. All parties will accept that he spent most of his summer, as he said he would, listening, and responding accordingly.
We still have concerns about some amendments. My intention is to highlight only a small number of them this evening. The Bill has been substantially debated,


both here and in the other place. I do not share the concerns expressed by some hon. Members that there is not enough time for debate tonight. That is one reason why we supported the Government earlier.
I shall mention only one amendment in this group. The Minister has already mentioned it, and it may seem a little crazy of me to bring it up again. Amendment No. 241, as he rightly said, makes regulation of activities in outer space an excepted matter. One may think that uncontroversial, but I should highlight the fact that, believe it or not, Armagh observatory has played an increasingly important part in some space research, specifically on the asteroid threat—the impact of a heavenly body on the earth, which could cause catastrophic damage, and which could wipe out a vast proportion of the human race. It may seem insane to raise concern about that, and I do not expect the Minister to alter the Bill at this late stage, but advances in technology may make it possible for the Northern Ireland Assembly seriously to consider matters relating to outer space in 30 or 50 years' time. The Armagh observatory may then be actively involved in such activities.
I raise the matter only because Armagh observatory plays such a prominent role through experts such as Mr. Chambers, Bill Napier and others. I merely want to put the matter on record so that it may be read in the future when this concern is more prelevant. Perhaps Armagh observatory will thus be able to play its part in what will become an increasingly important scientific endeavour.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I want to ask a question about amendment No. 240, which refers to
regulation of sea fishing outside the Northern Ireland zone (except in relation to Northern Ireland fishing boats)",
which are defined in the way we would expect them to be. May I plead for parity of esteem among the fishing industries of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England?

Mr. Stephen Pound: And the Isle of Man.

Dr. Godman: As my hon. Friend says, the Isle of Man should be included, too. The Minister knows that the Northern Ireland fishing industry—specifically the catching sector—is much smaller than the Scottish industry. I seek an assurance that fishing communities in Northern Ireland will enjoy parity of esteem with Scottish, English and Welsh communities when negotiations take place in Brussels and in London on total allowable catches and other such matters. My hon. Friend may wish to write to me, but I seek an assurance in principle for now.

Mr. Paul Murphy: If my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is patient, he will hear me speak about the fishing industry under the next group of amendments. I hope that I shall not have to write to him.
I am grateful for the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik). I, too, have visited Armagh observatory. It was the first observatory I had been to, and it was an extremely valuable visit. The observatory is a great educational asset for Northern Ireland. Activities in outer space have been moved from the reserved to the

excepted category because that is the case in Scotland. Amendment No. 241 refers to launching into space, so that it would be possible, eventually, for Northern Ireland—and Scotland for that matter—to take part in such activities.
Putting on for a moment my other hat, as a Finance Minister, I should add that I have not set aside any money for such activities in the forthcoming financial year.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

ACTS OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 41, after ("6") insert (", (Entrenched enactments)")

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 24, 26 and 271.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments provide a group of miscellaneous changes to part H of the Bill, which concerns legislative powers. They are, again, mostly of technical or drafting significance. I draw attention to two sets of amendments, both of which are based on the Scotland Bill. There are provisions, starting with amendment No. 11, to permit the Northern Ireland Assembly to regulate fishing in a Northern Ireland zone, and to allow it jurisdiction over Northern Ireland-licensed boats beyond that, which is the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred earlier.
Amendment No. 11 relates to clause 6, and provides that
Her Majesty may by Order in Council"—
subject to affirmative resolution at Westminster—
specify functions which are to be treated … as … exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland.
That is one of several amendments throughout the Bill to permit the Northern Ireland authorities to regulate fishing in a Northern Ireland zone. The designation of the zone is provided for under amendment No. 219, and the Northern Ireland authorities could be given power as respects Northern Ireland-licensed boats, even outside the zone. The amendments parallel arrangements in the Scotland Bill.
There is also a procedure by which the Assembly can reconsider a Bill that has been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under clause 10, and which the Committee has then referred to the European Court.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 24 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 6, line 26, leave out from ("contains") to end of line 27 and insert
("a provision which he considers—

(a) would be incompatible with any international obligations, with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order; or
(b) would have an adverse effect on the operation of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom.").

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 61.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments have two purposes: first, to ensure that the interests of defence, national security, public order and public safety are properly safeguarded under the new devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland and, secondly, to protect the operation of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 25 provides that the Secretary of State may decline to submit an Assembly Bill for Royal Assent if she considers it to be incompatible with any international obligations, the interests of defence or national security, the protection of public safety or public order, or with the operation of the UK single market. Amendment No. 60 is closely related, and gives the Secretary of State power to revoke subordinate legislation for the same reasons.
Hon. Members will want to be aware that the Scotland Bill also contains provisions for ensuring that legislation meets international obligations and safeguards national security, so the amendments make the Bill compatible with the Scotland Bill, although the provisions are not directly equivalent.
It is worth while outlining the important principle of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom. Under European Community law, the Assembly and Northern Ireland Ministers will be required to meet obligations under EC single market legislation in transferred areas; that will include not discriminating against goods and services from any other member state of the European Union.
Community legislation enforces a single market between EU member states, but not necessarily within each member state. The amendments seek to fill that gap, since it is only right that goods and services from England, Wales and Scotland should be treated no less favourably than those from other EU member states.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 deal with the Secretary of State's power to direct that certain action be taken by Ministers or Departments or to direct that proposed action is not taken. When the Bill left the House previously, clause 20 enabled the Secretary of State to exercise that power only to comply with international obligations. The amendments extend that responsibility so that the interests of defence, national security, public order and public safety are also protected.
The Government consider the amendments to be important and necessary. It is a vital responsibility of Government to safeguard the interests of defence and national security and to protect public order and public safety. That responsibility extends throughout the United Kingdom and will continue to do so after devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The amendments ensure that the Secretary of State has a means of continuing to discharge her responsibilities in respect of those matters after devolution.
Although I of course hope that no situation would ever arise in which the interests of defence, national security, public order or public safety were in danger of being

compromised, the nature of the subjects is such that it would be entirely inappropriate even to leave open that possibility. The consequences are potentially too serious. The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to act speedily if an urgent issue were to arise.
Clearly, it is not possible to describe all the circumstances in which such an issue may arise. Many areas to be governed by Assembly legislation will need to contain ancillary provisions on national security. For example, orders as diverse as the Litter Order 1993, the Food Safety Order 1991 and the Electricity Order 1991 have included provisions such as an override of the powers of entry to protect sensitive areas. We need to ensure that proper provisions continue to be made in that wide-ranging field.
I emphasise to the House that those provisions, by their very nature, will be used by the Government only as a last resort. If an issue were to arise which caused concern, every effort would be made to resolve it through consultation with the Northern Ireland Administration. If, and only if, that were not possible would the Secretary of State use that power of direction. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is important that such a power is available. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

Clause 14

FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 7, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("elect") in line 19 and insert
("a period of six weeks beginning with its first meeting,").

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 32.

Mr. Ingram: I shall deal with the amendments slightly out of order and speak first to amendments Nos. 29 and 30, which deal with concerns raised during earlier stages of the House's consideration of the Bill about the impact of a vacancy in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts.
As the Bill stood, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister needed to make decisions jointly. If one ceased to hold office, the other automatically did so too. That would then be followed by a new election for First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
That was considered during the proceedings on the Bill and concerns were raised by a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), whom I am pleased to see here this evening. He has followed the Bill through its many stages. Those Members suggested that the Bill could give rise to a vacuum at the centre of the devolved Government. The First Minister and Deputy


First Minister play an important role, and it would be awkward if the posts were vacant at a time when joint decisions were needed.
The new provisions prevent such a vacuum from occurring by enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint alternates from among the Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise functions during their absence through illness or incapacity or during a vacancy.
Under the amendments, if either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister post fell vacant, the other would too, but the alternate and the remaining postholder would continue to exercise the functions of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly in a caretaker capacity until a fresh election had been held. In the event of absence or incapacity, the amendments provide that the alternate would not be able to exercise the functions of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister for a period exceeding six weeks. That time would be used to deal with any concerns raised.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 31 and 32 clarify the Bill's provisions, making it clear that the Assembly is to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of the vacancy. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 32 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 33, after clause 14, to insert the following new clause—Ministerial offices—
.—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time, and shall where subsection (2) applies, determine—

(a) the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers; and
(b) the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each such office.

(2) This subsection applies where provision is made by an Act of the Assembly for establishing a new Northern Ireland department or dissolving an existing one.
(3) In making a determination under subsection ( 1 ), the First Minister and the deputy First Minister shall ensure that the functions exercisable by those in charge of the different Northern Ireland departments existing at the date of the determination are exercisable by the holders of different Ministerial offices.
(4) The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.
(5) A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 44 and 373.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments deal with a technical but extremely important part of the Bill—the workings of the d'Hondt formula for appointing Ministers. I had never heard of d'Hondt until I went into the talks process, but we hear of nothing else nowadays. As hon. Members know, d'Hondt refers to the system by which members of the Executive—the Ministers for Northern Ireland—

will eventually be appointed. Essentially, they will be appointed on the basis of the electoral strength of their party as a consequence of the Assembly elections.
Many of the amendments that we are considering in this regard reflect points made during previous consideration in Committee and in the House on Report. Other amendments are technical, reflecting the complexity of the subject matter. As I said on Report and Third Reading, the provisions on the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula should be re-run needed amendment in order to reflect the spirit of the agreement fully.
Amendment No. 33 sets out the circumstances in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make a determination, as it is called, setting out the number of ministerial posts, and the functions exercisable by the holders of those posts. Those determinations need to be approved by the Assembly on a cross-community basis.
The First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be able to introduce determinations when they choose, but they must do so if legislation has been passed creating or dissolving a Northern Ireland department, as it would clearly be wrong to create a new department without ensuring that it had a Minister in charge of it.
In addition to new determinations to reflect what we might call the machinery of government changes, the Bill also needs provision for the d'Hondt formula to be rerun within the existing framework of departmental responsibility—a matter that was of great interest to hon. Members in Committee.
The series of amendments to clause 15, and in particular amendment No. 34, concern the circumstances in which the formula would be re-run. As hon. Members will know by now, the d'Hondt formula is a means of allocating posts proportionally. The formula will obviously therefore need to be re-run after every Assembly election to take account of new electoral mandates. In addition, amendment No. 34 provides for re-runs in other circumstances—for example, when a party is excluded from office, leaving its seats vacant, or when a party's period of exclusion comes to an end and its entitlement to hold office has to be accommodated.
The Assembly will also be able to set out in its Standing Orders other circumstances when d'Hondt could be re-run. It is for the Members of the Assembly to determine what those circumstances will be. I understand that the Standing Orders Committee of the Assembly is examining the issues and will continue to do so.
The other amendments deal with technical issues, such as what happens when a party declines to provide a nominee for a post to which it is entitled, a definition of a registered political party and a provision that nominating officers may delegate their powers only to officers of their party who are also members of the Assembly.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are particularly loved, I guess, by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who referred to an anorak when he spoke about them previously, as only he understood the algebraic formulas. I now refer to S and how to define it. It is the figure in the d'Hondt formula reflecting the number of seats that the party has in the Assembly.
The revised definition—I am delighted that we do not have to deal with this in the Welsh Assembly—defines S as the number of seats that a party held at the first meeting of the Assembly. We believe that it is right in


determining party representation in the Executive Committee to base the calculation on the electoral mandate that the party received in the Assembly election.
Amendment No. 373 is a transitional provision, and ensures that any determination on the number of ministerial posts made during the shadow phase carries forward after devolution.
The reason for the d'Hondt formula, and for S and the algebra, is important. The purpose is to ensure confidence across the community in Northern Ireland, so that people know that their parties will, if they receive a sufficient mandate in the election, have the opportunity for their Members to become Ministers and play their part in the Executive Committee. The referendum was successful for that reason. The formula gives both sides of the community—and others who believe that they do not belong to either of the traditional communities—the opportunity to play their part in the government of Northern Ireland.
As I see the Assembly working, I believe that the overwhelming number of its Members—whatever party they represent—have the interests of their constituents at heart. When those Members must eventually decide their priorities, budgets and policies on hospitals, roads and so on, we will be in a position to say—hand on heart—that the system is satisfactory across the political and religious divide. That is why we chose the d'Hondt formula, that is why the people voted for it, and that is why I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the Minister for bringing my long and lonely vigil in defence of proportional representation to a very happy end. I gave the impression of understanding what I was talking about in July—my thanks to others who have been concerned about this issue. It was a good example of intensive and considerable representations leading to a favourable outcome. I suppose that, instead of wearing the anorak of a defender of proportional representation, I now wear the mantle of respectability.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: With knee breeches, tights and silver-buckle shoes.

Mr. Öpik: Perhaps the other place could learn from my experience.
It will be most important to observe the system functioning in the years ahead and to ensure that it works. Once again, I thank the Minister and his staff for listening carefully to our concerns.

Mr. Peter Robinson: When I raised this issue during earlier debate on the Bill, I asked the Minister whether he would reconsider and include in the legislation a specific requirement to re-run the formula when party numbers changed within the Assembly to such an extent that they impacted on the number of Ministers, chairmen or vice-chairmen from a particular party. Rather than assisting us in that matter, the Minister has done the reverse: he has enshrined in even more definite terms the requirement that the original formula should stand.
That is nonsense, and the Minister has sown the seeds of the Assembly's destruction. I invite him to consider circumstances in which Assembly Members change party in such significant numbers that it affects the number of ministerial and other Assembly posts to which that party is entitled. Under the Bill as framed, that party would not be able to gain the additional posts to which it would be entitled numerically. At that stage, the Executive would not have the power to vote through their own legislation against parties that had been badly done by in those circumstances. A party deprived of ministerial posts because of the insistence on this formula could hold the entire Assembly to ransom and, because of the cross-community rule, prevent decisions from being taken.
The Minister has made this short-sighted determination for only one political purpose. He knows that the most likely movement within the Assembly would be away from the Ulster Unionist party faction led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
The Minister knows that his agreement would flounder in circumstances in which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann lost numerical strength in the Assembly. Therefore, without any democratic support in the Assembly, the Minister hopes that he can allow the right hon. Gentleman to hold on to office, but he does that only through trickery in the Bill, not through a democratic vote in the Assembly. It is altogether wrong that the Minister takes that course.
It is too late to urge the Minister to think again, because he has taken the matter on an entirely political basis. I entirely oppose what he has done—it is undemocratic. There is no need for any hon. Member to rejoice and think that the Minister is upholding democratic principles. He is not; he is ensuring that, whatever the results at an election, no change will take place in the Assembly thereafter, no matter how much people depart from their manifesto commitments.
The Minister has done a disservice to the House by supporting the amendment and by insisting that the democratic will of the Assembly would be defied in such circumstances. Voting against the amendment would have no impact, other than to reduce the time available for us to speak under this tight schedule. I oppose the measure, but will not be voting on the issue, simply because of time.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the formula enshrined in the amendment copper-fastens in statute the will of the people, as distinct from the will and the manipulative processes of political parties within the Assembly? Does he also agree that the result of the elections to the Assembly is the will of the people embodied and expressed in the number of seats gained by each party? Surely that is the most democratic expression of what the people want and the way in which the Bill allows for the allocation of ministerial seats by the d'Hondt principle.
It is not appropriate for the Bill to provide for the manipulations of parties that are trying to pressurise elected Members to move from one block to another for the purpose of frustrating the agreement, the election and the will of the people.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister had never heard of d'Hondt. All I can tell him is that he should have a look


at that Assembly in Strasbourg; he would know perfectly well that such things happen all the time under the d'Hondt system.
Members of the Minister's party have been removed from office and from Committees because of changes in the alignment of Members of the European Parliament. That goes on all the time under the d'Hondt system. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) to tell us that that would be a terrible thing, because the d'Hondt system in the European Parliament works in exactly that way. There are all sorts of changes: people from other countries suddenly say that they are no longer affiliated to a certain political grouping, resign and join another grouping. If there are enough resignations, all the chairmanships of every Committee of the European Parliament have to change accordingly.
The European Parliament is always being pointed to as something to be admired, followed and looked up to. The Labour party is dropping a lot of people for the next election, and it will have a lot of other people elected, so it has wide experience of this. The Minister argues that we should adopt the d'Hondt principle, but then he copper-fastens an election for four years. A lot can happen in four years; if such changes happened in this House, the hon. Member for South Down would not say that this House was undemocratic. If they happened in the Dail—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would carry a flag for the democracy of the Dail—it would be all right; and it has happened in the Dail.
I remember a member of Fine Gael who suddenly discovered that he was going to be a member of Fianna Fail, and it changed the whole Government. Of course, he got a good payment, because he was made a Commissioner for Europe and got a grand handshake twice of £60,000, so it was a good deal, but such changes happen under the d'Hondt system, and the House should be aware of it.
I noticed that the Minister shook his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) talked about the measure sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Assembly. Say, for example, that 28 Unionists disagree with what is happening: technically, they line up behind the First Minister designate. Among them, about eight or nine are completely unhappy. When it comes to a cross-community vote and they vote under the cross-community system, there is no cross-community consensus. Under the rule that the Minister is introducing, the only way out of that difficulty—we have discussed it in Committee—is to have an election.
Will that lead to the stability of Northern Ireland? Why can the d'Hondt principle not be followed through, as it is in Europe? The European Parliament runs for its full term. Those who are members of that Parliament have the happy knowledge of when there is going to be another election; it is not like here, where we do not know when the election will be. Why cannot that system be followed?
Therefore, to say that the measure will remedy the position is incorrect. If the situation is as the Minister wants to have it, when it comes to the division, we are going to have an election, and, after the election, the seats will be allocated in keeping with the d'Hondt principle; so what is the use of trying to put off the evil day if there is a rigid divide in the Assembly?
Say, for example—not that it is likely—that a section of the Social Democratic and Labour party joined Sinn Fein. What would happen then? It may be possible, although I do not think that it is likely: I know that the hon. Member for South Down will not be joining Sinn Fein. However, what I am saying is that that could happen. Therefore, it would far better to follow the d'Hondt principle clearly through the whole system.

Mr. Robert McCartney: One of the difficulties faced by the consensual arrangement under the agreement for allegedly creating democratic institutions in Northern Ireland is the absence of an effective opposition. Everyone except several minor parties that will never, by their votes, be able to change anything, will be in the Government, and they will be in the Government on the application of the d'Hondt principles.
Therefore, one of the weaknesses of the entire system that has been set up under the Bill and under the agreement is the inability of parties or people to change anything within the period, or the initial period, of the Assembly's lifetime. Everyone will be in government, so, effectively, the Government will at no time be the subject of criticism.
Many people say that that is the difficulty that one has to suffer to provide some institutions that will be generally accepted on a cross-community basis, but that is no reason why one should set in stone provisions that effectively prevent the dangers of those institutions from being ameliorated.
For example, at present the Unionist side contains 28 Ulster Unionists and two members of the Progressive Unionist party who are genuinely in favour of the agreement. There are 28 members of the Assembly–20 in the Democratic Unionist party, five in the UK Unionist party and three in the United Unionist party. Thus, when a crucial issue arises, there will be two groups, one with 30 votes and one with 28.
9 pm
One of the issues that may lead to a serious realignment of that grouping is decommissioning. The way in which the First Minister deals with decommissioning could cause a substantial number of members of his party to join the 28 who are saying no. Under these proposals, however, because the First Minister had 28 members to start with, he would probably be entitled to three Ministries. Even if, as a result of some change within his party, he finished up with 10 members of his party who were willing to support him, he would still, apparently, be able to continue with three Ministers.
That is a ludicrous situation, which should not be permitted, but, if the assignment of Ministries, under the d'Hondt arrangements, is pinned for all time to the number of members elected to the party concerned at the date of the election, it is effectively what will happen. Such arrangements will prevent anyone being able to change the number of representatives as Ministers in the Executive, because they will be pinned to a certain point in time—the date of the election.
In such circumstances, the absence of flexibility may even bring about what many people, perhaps the majority, would not want: the collapse of the Assembly. If a minority party has three Ministers, and a group with


40 or 50 members only two Ministers, difficulties will arise. That would be such an insult to the democratic process as to be patently unworkable.
In the interests not of defeating the Assembly but of giving it a flexibility that will reflect the basic demands of democracy, and perhaps preserving it, I ask Ministers to think again about placing in tablets of stone the entitlement of Members of the Assembly under the d'Hondt principles, and pinning that entitlement to events at the date of the election, which may not, at the relevant time, reflect what Assembly members—or a majority group of them—would want.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for their support on some of the issues that we are discussing. Let me make a few points about what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
I do not think that I am sowing the seeds of destruction of the Assembly. That is far from my mind. The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to "my" agreement. It is not my agreement; it is the people's agreement. They voted for it in the referendum. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the idea of rerunning d'Hondt during a period when the Assembly was in office. He raised the issue in the House, as did his colleagues, during consultation. However, the other parties in Northern Ireland did not share his view. He is probably not surprised about that—it is politics.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that I was taking a political decision. However, the other place took a decision on this group of Lords amendments, and the House will take a decision on it. As a consequence of our consultation, we tell the House that we believe that the best course of action is that d'Hondt should be re-run only in the circumstances to which I have referred. The Assembly itself, using its own standing orders, can determine the precise basis of any other circumstances.
I think that people in Northern Ireland will understand full well when they vote for parties that—because of the system in which we are currently engaged in Northern Ireland, under d'Hondt—ministerial responsibilities will be established in accordance with the electoral mandate. That is a very straightforward point.
The hon. Member for North Antrim made comparisons with Europe. As I have been investigating d'Hondt, I have been interested in how other legislatures, particularly in Europe, have dealt with it. There are, of course, differences. We are dealing with d'Hondt in the context of an entirely new political agreement, and of all the other aspects that such an agreement entails. The situation in Europe is very different. Although the system is the same, it is operating within a different context.
I think that the Government have taken the right decision, and I hope that the House agrees with us. The other place has agreed with us. I sincerely hope that the public will understand our reasons. I have no doubt that some hon. Members will not agree with me, but they will be able to make their points forcefully in the Assembly itself when it considers the matters.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 44 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 45, after clause 15, to insert the following new clause—Junior Ministers—
.—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time determine—

(a) that a number of members of the Assembly specified in the determination shall be appointed as junior Ministers in accordance with such procedures for their appointment as are so specified; and
(b) that the functions exercisable by virtue of each junior Ministerial office shall be those specified in relation to that office in the determination.

(2) Procedures specified in a determination under this section may apply such formulae or other rules as the First Minister and the deputy First Minister consider appropriate.
(3) A determination under this section shall—

(a) make provision as to the circumstances in which a junior Minister shall cease to hold office, and for the tilling of vacancies; and
(b) provide that a junior Minister shall not take up office until he has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office.

(4) A determination under this section shall not take effect until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(5) Where a determination under this section takes effect—

(a) any junior Ministers previously appointed shall cease to hold office; and
(b) the procedures specified in the determination shall be applied within a period specified in standing orders."

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 82, 98, 364 and 374.

Mr. Murphy: I suspect that there may be some disagreement in the House on this group of amendments too, but we shall see what hon. Members have to say about it. We discussed the issue of junior Ministers with every party in Northern Ireland, and it has been debated in the other place. When we debated the Bill before the summer recess, we touched on the issue. Unfortunately, the talks process did not get around to talking and dealing in depth with the issue. Consequently, the agreement is effectively silent on junior Ministers.
The new clause and consequential amendments would enable the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly to decide to have junior Ministers in addition to the junior Northern Ireland Ministers provided for in the Bill. As I said, there is nothing in the agreement about junior Ministers, although they are provided for in Scotland, were a feature of previous devolved government in Northern Ireland, and are, of course, a feature at Westminster.
In subsequent meetings with the parties, there has been some strong support for some provision in the Bill for the appointment of junior Ministers. There has been no disagreement on the principle, although there has been disagreement on the methods by which they are to be appointed.


Accordingly, the new clause provides for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to make a determination that may cover the number, functions and methods of appointment of junior Ministers—who, of course, must be Members of the Assembly. Such a joint determination would not take effect—this is very important—until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly itself.
The other amendments in the group are consequential. They would subject junior Ministers to clause 23's provisions on exclusion from office. They provide that junior Ministers, like Northern Ireland Ministers, cannot serve as Chairmen or Deputy Chairmen of Committees. Last, but not least, the amendment to clause 38 would enable junior Ministers to be paid extra.
Amendment No. 364 subjects junior Ministers, as well as Northern Ireland Ministers, to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Amendment No. 374 is a transitional amendment, providing that any determination on junior Ministers during the shadow period is carried forward after devolution.
It is for the Assembly to deal with the nature of junior Ministers by internal debate.

Mr. Öpik: As the Minister rightly says, there is no reference to junior Ministers in the Good Friday agreement, so the issue had to be worked out afterwards. If they are a sub-category of Ministers, we can assume that they will be allocated in proportion to party strength, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. I seek an assurance on how the Minister envisages that working.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Nothing in the amendment makes it clear that that will be done by the d'Hondt principle. The amendment leaves the nomination in the hands of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mr. Öpik: That is the concern that I was going to raise. Although we can assume that the posts will be allocated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, there is no mention of that in the amendment. That is why the Liberal Democrats opposed it in another place. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister appear to have the right to appoint junior Ministers however they want. That seems to run against the spirit of the agreement—and perhaps the letter of it, depending on the interpretation of the term Minister.
There is only a minimal check on the procedure. The Assembly must approve the allocation by a simple majority vote. That means that junior Ministers could be drawn from just three parties. I am flagging the issue because we remain concerned that the provisions run against the d'Hondt principle, because it has not been specified in the amendment.
There is an associated concern, which the Conservatives have raised before. Previously, Northern Ireland managed with four or five Ministers. There could now be 10 Ministers and 10 junior Ministers—a fourfold increase. That could be justified on the grounds of inclusivity, but the method of allocation is in no way inclusive—it is just on the whim of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That increases their power rather further than was envisaged in the agreement. We may trust the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but there is no guarantee about the actions and intentions of future incumbents.
I hope that the Minister will go some way towards allaying our fears. It would not be appropriate to call a vote on the issue, but I seek an assurance that he is sensitive to our concerns. I look forward to hearing how he feels a safeguard could be implemented to overcome them.

Dr. Godman: Subsection (1)(b) of the new clause to be inserted after clause 15 refers to the functions exercised by Ministers. If a Minister had responsibility for fisheries, would that responsibility be confined to the Northern Ireland fishing zone?
I have engaged in debate with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. and old Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the issue before, and, as everybody knows, many Northern Ireland fishermen fish outwith the Northern Ireland fisheries zone. A few years ago, a Northern Ireland fishing boat was almost dragged down by a nuclear submarine, and that happened far closer to Wemyss Bay than to Ballycastle or anywhere else in Northern Ireland.
The livelihood of fishermen in Northern Ireland is largely determined by decisions taken at meetings of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels. Will the Minister tell me what role a Fisheries Minister from the Northern Ireland Assembly would play in relation to those meetings? That subject caused much concern during the passage of the Scotland Bill.
Perhaps the Minister has already dealt with the matter in one of our debates that I missed. If so, I apologise to him, and to the House for detaining it unnecessarily—but I want to know whether the Fisheries Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly will be involved in the deliberations of the Council of Fisheries Ministers.
Will there be a concordat, as is to be established between the Fisheries Ministers in Edinburgh and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Hon. Members from Northern Ireland may say that they are well able to look after the interests of their fishermen in this place, through the Fisheries Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the Fisheries Minister here should be supported in Europe by the Ministers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because only those Ministers will understand the full situation and be able argue it properly and forcefully in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, because, as he knows, such decisions are taken in Europe, and they cannot be taken properly unless the Committee concerned, which makes the recommendation to the Commission, has the full information. I believe that the Ministers from the various Assemblies are the people who will have that full information.

Dr. Godman: As I said, we have often engaged in exchanges on that subject. I remember the hon. Gentleman complaining when a Fisheries Minister from the Irish Republic got more for his people than had been obtained by the Fisheries Minister responsible to this House.
I think that the Fisheries Ministers in the two Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament will have to work in close harmony with the Fisheries Minister in the


Ministry of Agriculture. That Minister is the lead Minister for the United Kingdom at meetings of the Fisheries Council, but he or she must pay close and sympathetic attention to the concerns of the fishermen of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. McNamara: There will also be the Council of the Isles in one form or another. The Minister in the Republic will be involved too, so there will be a ministerial relationship between Dublin and Westminster, and also between Belfast and Dublin. Perhaps we could develop a unified British Isles attitude towards fishing.

Mr. Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the amendment relates to the appointment of junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Have the matters recently under discussion any relevance to that issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter of order for the Chair. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is in order at the moment.

Dr. Godman: I would not dare to step out of order with your formidable presence in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Currently, a Minister in the Northern Ireland office has responsibility for agriculture and fisheries, and some of those responsibilities will be handed over to a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Is the Minister with that responsibility being confined to the management of the fisheries within the Northern Ireland fisheries zone, which were referred to earlier? These are important issues for our fishing communities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere.
To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I said in a recent speech in Scotland that I thought that one of the major issues to be determined at meetings of the Council of the Isles—or the British-Irish Council—was pollution in the seas between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the seas between England and Wales and the Republic. That is another very important issue for our fishermen.
I do not want to detain the House, but the Minister is aware of my interest in the management of fisheries. I would hope to see the development of a concordat between the lead Minister in the United Kingdom's Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers from Scotland, Belfast and Cardiff. I am seeking that assurance from my hon. Friend, and I hope the Ministers from the Assemblies and the Parliament will play an important role vis-a-vis the deliberations and decisions taken in Brussels.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister was right to say that few, if any, in the House would oppose on principle the possibility of there being junior Ministers in the Assembly. However, the necessity for junior Ministers in the Assembly might depend entirely on the number of Departments there are and the degree of responsibility that Minsters have.
If, for instance, there were only four or five Ministers, one could argue a good case as to why they should be given some assistance and support from junior Ministers.

If, on the other hand, the full complement permitted under the Bill of 10 Departments—and therefore 10 Ministers—were to be taken up, the case begins to diminish.
At present, we have two Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who do all of the work that would be transferred under the Bill. About half of the duties of the two Ministers, who are sitting on the Front Bench, would be in matters which are to be transferred—roughly speaking. That means that, in total, we have the equivalent of three existing Ministers who are doing the work. However, under the provisions of the Bill, there could be 10 Ministers in the Departments, a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and, on top of that, a plethora of junior Ministers who could also be appointed.
I happen to come from the school of thought that says that one Ulster man can do what three English, Scottish or Welsh men could do, but this proposal seems to be putting that in reverse. Perhaps a dozen or so Ulster men will take over what, effectively, three English, Scottish and Welsh Ministers are doing at present.
The case for junior Ministers still has to be argued, although, in fairness, it must be said that the visibility and closeness of Northern Ireland Ministers will probably mean that they have much more work to do than existing Ministers. They will not be able to hide or escape as easily as present Ministers have been wont to do, and their availability will increase their work load. Of course, the experiences on which I draw apply to both sides of the House.
Although I agree with the principle that there is no reason that there should not be junior Ministers, 1 am not convinced that a case is to be made for having them. Such a case could be made only after the existing Departments have been working for some time and the work load that falls on the shoulders of Ministers and the Deputy First and First Ministers can be properly assessed.
Junior Ministers will not be working within the 10 Departments as some people have suggested. That is not present thinking among those who are meeting at Stormont. Their view is that junior Ministers should work entirely in the central office and, effectively, take on tasks that run across Departments—for instance, Europe, equality issues and matters that would impinge on more than one departmental responsibility.
The notion that departmental Ministers will each have a junior Minister is wrong. Indeed, under the system that the Minister of State is to throw upon our laps, it would be a disaster. Can one imagine the possibility of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister deciding to appoint a Sinn Fein junior Minister to a Department that had a Democratic Unionist party Minister? One does not need to think about that too long to realise the problems that could arise. Yet, if appointments are left solely to the discretion of the First and Deputy First Ministers, that and many other conflicts could occur.
I have read through the agreement in great detail many times. The parties who were signatories to it seemed to accept the principle that the d'Hondt method of appointment should be used for posts within the Assembly—whether ministerial, a chairmanship or a deputy chairmanship. Clearly, the system was laid out in the agreement. If it is right that a Deputy Chairman should be appointed under d'Hondt, it must be right that a junior Minister should be similarly appointed. Why are the


Government not consistent? Why do they not follow through what was clearly the established principle within the agreement?
Once again, the Government are attempting to prop up a certain political cabal within the Assembly. The Minister recognises that a certain person does not have much support at present and that he needs to prop him up. So what does the hon. Gentleman do? He provides him with the instrument that Governments often use to prop themselves up—patronage. He allows him to have the instrument that he can use to keep people in line. So, having ensured in the previous set of amendments that no changes can take place, even if all but one of the Members' party move to another group, the hon. Gentleman is now allowing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister a mechanism whereby they can effectively buy support within the Assembly. Again, that is not good for the democratic process.
If the Bill does not expressly indicate what positions there could be within the Assembly, will the Minister say whether the Assembly is entitled to create those positions? Is that sound under the Bill? For example, if there are 10 Ministers, a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and, perhaps, 12 junior Ministers for all we know, will the First Minister and Deputy First Minister be permitted to have parliamentary private secretaries? Can the patronage be extended beyond what is contemplated in the Bill if the Assembly and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister propose it? I hope that the Minister will respond to that question, too.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.5 million people. It has a devolved Assembly containing 108 elected Members and 26 local councils. Under the Bill, it will be subjected to a raft of implementation bodies, which are designed to bring about some consensual ecumenicism between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It will also send members to the Council of the British Isles. In other words, Northern Ireland will become the most over-governed, most expensive and over-administrated piece of ground in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe, and all that must be paid for.
A great debate is raging between the two major parties in Northern Ireland—he SDLP and the Ulster Unionists—on the number of Ministries or portfolios there should be. The agreement and the Bill provide for a maximum of 10 Ministries, with the addition of a central Ministry that will be supervised by the First Minister designate and the second Minister designate—that means that there will be 11 Ministries. The central Ministry will almost certainly look after finance and personnel, but it will have a general roving commission over the other 10 Ministries.
The criterion for the number of Ministries will be not whether 10 Ministries are required for the functional efficiency of the Administration, but the maximum number that can be obtained politically to spread government across the widest field, so that everyone is brought in, including the representatives of organised and practising terror. Sinn Fein will be in charge of two of the 10 Ministries—it is likely to choose equality and education and cultural activity.
That must all be paid for. As the Minister said in his illuminating address to the Assembly a week last Monday—he was talking about budgetary proposals and

the block grant for Northern Ireland—the total cost of the 10 Ministries, with the raft of bureaucrats, civil servants, officials and other personages who are needed to service them, will come from the block grant. The piglets in government will have not only their snouts but their trotters in the trough. It is now suggested that the trough should be extended—even tinier piglets should be brought in to enjoy the Government's largesse.
Is that necessary? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the duties and functions of Ministers who are seconded to the Northern Ireland Office. The six or seven existing Departments seem to function well, but there will be, in addition to the 12 Ministers, an undetermined number of gofers. They will be allotted across the board from the central portfolio held by the two senior Ministers. Why? We know that, when there is a vote and the Whip is applied, all those who benefit from the fruits of office are on the payroll.
The extended payroll will be in the gift of the First and second Ministers: effectively in the gift of the Ulster Unionist and Social Democratic and Labour parties, the parties of the centre that will run the show. Those parties will effectively exercise executive government and downgrade the legislative function of the Assembly.
No mind, however fertile, ever thought for a moment of including junior Ministers in the agreement, because no one ever conceived that there would be any necessity for them. The 10 Ministers, plus the two chiefs, will have an enormous body of assistants. The place is coming down with special advisers. If only the public could see the facilities and the assistants that are being provided for Ministers in Northern Ireland, they would realise immediately that there is no reason whatever to have any junior Ministers, and especially ones who will be totally in the thrall of the First and second Ministers designate.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, East pointed, d'Hondt was written in stone in the part of the agreement relating to the electoral mandate, but now an issue to which d'Hondt does not apply and that was not predicated in the agreement has been put entirely in the gift of the First and second Ministers, when no solid case has been established for the need for the junior Ministers, who will absorb money that Northern Ireland, the Assembly and the Executive could well devote to much worthier causes than providing a source of patronage.
Some of us in Northern Ireland still have a conscience about public expenditure and believe that the measure would amount to no more than the placing of the means of bribery in the hands of the First and second Ministers.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The case has been fairly put about the over-governance that will take place in Northern Ireland. Six Departments will become 10, and the central Department will be added. Select Committees with a paid Chairman and Vice-Chairmen, elected on the d'Hondt principle, will oversee every Department. There will have to be 11 Committees, because of the new central Department.
Yes, we were under-governed—there was a deficit but it seems to me that we have now gone to the extent of having too many personnel. Because of that, I cannot understand why the Government want to raise the matter of Ministers, of which matter I take a dim view. My party had a meeting with the First Minister and his deputy. We did not understand why they were so dedicated to the idea


of having junior Ministers, but I have concluded that it is because they need people on the payroll, whom they can keep in line during tight votes in the Assembly.
Remember that the voting is all cross-community. Unless the total number of people voting represent the majority in each community, there is no majority. In electoral terms, what is needed to make a majority is Unionists who are in the majority in their community, and nationalists who are in the majority in theirs, voting together. There are people labelled "others" who have no part in our lot. They can make only one change, becoming Unionists or nationalists, but it is hardly likely that the Alliance party will become a Unionist party, or that the Women's Coalition will become either Unionists or nationalists.
The Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Select Committees will be important. The Committees will have great power: they will be able to summons Ministers, persons and papers to answer. It will be some Government when all that gets going. The proposal in the amendment should never have been put to us—any suggestion that we should be doubling up is wrong. Perhaps the Ministers here tonight would like to propose to the Prime Minister that he gives all of them deputies to help alleviate the overloading. After all, there are six Departments, so why should those running them now not have assistants?

Mr. Paul Murphy: What an interesting debate. It centred on three separate issues, and I shall deal first with the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who spoke specifically about the role of Fisheries Ministers in the new Northern Ireland Administration.
I should say first that junior Ministers can have no statutory functions, but they can assist other Ministers. Therefore, on fisheries, a Northern Ireland Minister would have power over the Northern Ireland zone and, beyond the zone, over Northern Ireland-licensed boats—in other words, exactly the same position as in Scotland. The Minister concerned would be involved in European Union discussions, subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom; and, as my hon. Friend said, the issue would be covered in a concordat.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the British-Irish Council. It seems to me that the matters relating to the sea, such as pollution, the environment and fishing, would be obvious subjects for discussion in the British-Irish Council. However, matters connected with the European Union will inevitably be matters for the member states and the appropriate Ministers in that capacity.
The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised the nature of the appointment of junior Ministers. It is our belief—one with which the House of Lords concurred—that, because the agreement was silent on that point, the Assembly should determine that question. In other words, the amendments are enabling amendments. If the Assembly wishes, it can use the d'Hondt principle or any other method it wants—it is for the Assembly to decide by a majority.
The hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) all raised the

question whether junior Ministers should exist at all. The hon. and learned Member for North Down spoke at some length on the lack of a need for junior Ministers. However, a small number of junior Ministers will not greatly add to the burden of government in the way that the hon. Members suggested. They drew attention to the fact that Northern Ireland would have junior Ministers on top of councils, an Assembly with 108 members and Ministers, and they suggested that that would be a great panoply of government.
However, if we consider the situation in Wales after devolution, we see that the Welsh will have community councils, powerful unitary authorities and many public appointed bodies. Wales will also be a member of the British-Irish Council, like Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Welsh Ministers will take part in Europe alongside United Kingdom Ministers, and we must not forget the European Members of Parliament. Other parts of the UK will have similar structures.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister say how many Members will sit in the Welsh Assembly and what the population of Wales is, compared with that of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: The Assembly will have 60 Members and the population is 3 million, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. He also knows that people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales voted for the proposals. People in Northern Ireland voted in the referendum for 108 Members of the Assembly. He knows full well also that the Assembly will have so many Members because it has to be acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland, and that is achieved through a system of the single transferable vote. We must compare costs, and the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how much the proposals will cost. I can tell him that security in Northern Ireland has cost £1 billion a year. If the price of peace and political stability is 108 Members and the existence of junior Ministers, it is a price worth paying.

Mr. Peter Robinson: That is are paying the IRA's price.

Mr. Murphy: That is another issue. We are talking now about Members and junior Ministers. The talks process did not address the issue in detail. If it had, matters would be much easier for us, because the House would be able to implement what had been agreed. That is why we say that it should be for the Assembly to determine the role and number of junior Ministers.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 9, line 20, leave out ("the") and insert ("each").

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 71, 73, 74 and 377.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments parallel amendments already made to the clauses on Northern Ireland Ministers.


They include adjusting the d'Hondt formula in the way already done for Ministers, to provide that the formula should be run on the basis of the party's strength at the first meeting of the Assembly, thus fully reflecting its electoral mandate.
Other changes are more technical, including tidying up the provisions on how Committee Chairmen are to be replaced, and giving parties' nominating officers the power to dismiss their appointees. Perhaps amendment No. 67 is the most significant. It sets out on the face of the Bill the requirement for Standing Orders to ensure that Committees have the powers set out in paragraph 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. The Bill always gave Committees of the Assembly a key role, but amendment No. 67 addresses the concerns expressed by some parties during the consultation exercise.
There is also one entirely drafting amendment to the provisions on the Executive Committee of the Assembly. That is amendment No. 377, which is transitional and provides that any Committees established, and Chairmen appointed, during the shadow phase will carry forward after devolution.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 9, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) If an Act of the Assembly which establishes a new Northern Ireland department provides for it to be in the charge of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly—

(a) the department shall not be regarded as a Northern Ireland department for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) of section (Ministerial Offices); and
(b) the office held by those Ministers as the head of the department shall not be regarded as a Ministerial office for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section or section 15.").

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 48, 49, 375 and 376.

Mr. Murphy: These amendments deal with the location of prerogative and statutory power after devolution. Amendment No. 47 reflects the interest shown by some parties during the consultation process in creating a Department of the centre, to which several hon. Members have referred, under the joint control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Such a Department has obvious parallels in Whitehall. A similar Department was in existence during previous devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland. Its functions would be entirely for the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly to determine, but could include both policy co-ordination and statutory functions.
There is no explicit provision for such a Department in the Belfast agreement. Therefore, we have provided for such a Department to be created by an Act of the Assembly. However, if the parties agree on its creation during the shadow phase, the transitional provisions of the Bill will enable it to continue in existence after

devolution. The new clause also ensures that, if such a Department is created, it will not count towards the Bill's maximum of 10 ministerial offices, nor will it count towards d'Hondt.
Amendment No. 48 deals with statutory functions after devolution. During earlier consideration of the Bill in this House, there was some confusion about the scope of clause 18 on the prerogative and other Executive power. The clause gave the impression that the majority of Executive authority in Northern Ireland would be exercised by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly. In fact, of course, the prerogative is only a small part of all Executive power. Accordingly, the new clause deals with the most significant element of Executive authority—statutory power.
Statutory functions in Northern Ireland are generally vested in the Departments, under the control and direction of their Ministers. The new clause makes it clear that that will continue to be the case. Amendment No. 49 recasts clause 18, which deals with prerogative and other Executive powers. Despite the sometimes grand language of the clause, it deals with far less significant functions than those covered by the new clause that precedes it. As the amendment makes clear, the most significant prerogative power exercisable under the clause is the management of the Northern Ireland civil service. Prerogative and other Executive powers also include a series of more minor powers that the Government can exercise in the same way as a normal citizen, such as the power to enter into contracts.
Other than clarifying, in subsection (3), the position with respect to the Northern Ireland civil service, the main significance of the amendment is the ability it gives to Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise prerogative powers directly without being authorised explicitly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is important for administrative reasons, since even relatively mundane departmental tasks, such as publishing leaflets, depend to a degree on using prerogative powers, and it would clearly be absurdly cumbersome to require explicit approval for those tasks.
Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 are transitional. They provide that any Department established during the shadow phase under the joint control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may carry on after devolution. Amendment No. 378 similarly ensures that prerogative orders made under the 1973 Letters Patent can remain in force after devolution.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 19

COMMUNITY LAW, CONVENTION RIGHTS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 10, line 1, at end insert (", confirm or approve").

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 55.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments make drafting and technical improvements to clause 19, which prevents


Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments from doing things—including making legislation—which are incompatible with rights under the European convention on human rights or European Union law, or which involve discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion. They enable us to set out clearly the possible conduct that we intend to prevent, and to bring certain additional matters within the scope of the clause so as to bring it into line with other provisions of the Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 61 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 62, after clause 20, to insert the following new clause—Quotas for purposes of international etc obligations—
.—(1) A Minister of the Crown may make an order containing provision such as is specified in subsection (2) where—

(a) an international obligation or an obligation under Community law is an obligation to achieve a result defined by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise); and
(b) the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to an area including the United Kingdom or to an area consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which is or includes the whole or part of Northern Ireland).

(2) The provision referred to in subsection (1) is provision for the achievement by a Minister or Northern Ireland department (in the exercise of his or its functions) of so much of the result to be achieved under the international obligation or obligation under Community law as is specified in the order.
(3) The order may specify the time by which any part of the result to be achieved by the Minister or department is to be achieved.
(4) Where an order under subsection (1) is in force in relation to an international obligation or an obligation under Community law, the obligation shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it were an obligation to achieve so much of the result to be achieved under the obligation as is specified in the order by the time or times so specified.
(5) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1) unless he has consulted the Minister or Department concerned.

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 63 to 65.

Mr. Ingram: Amendment No. 62 permits the making of an order determining the Northern Ireland share of a quota imposed on the United Kingdom by virtue of an international or European Community obligation. The same provision applies in the case of Wales and in amendments to the Scotland Bill. That is necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom as a whole meets its international obligations.
Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 allow arrangements to be made for Northern Ireland Departments to carry out functions on behalf of other devolved UK Administrations, including the Government, or vice versa.
Agency arrangements were provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the inclusion of public bodies and holders of public office in the provisions enables authorities outside central Government Departments in devolved Administrations to act on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, should the need arise.
The amendments achieve parity among all three devolved systems and I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 63 to 76 agreed to.

Clause 23

EXCLUSION OF MINISTERS FROM OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 12, line 18, leave out from ("because") to ("other") in line 19 and insert
("it is not committed to such of its members as are or might become Ministers or junior Ministers observing the")

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 79 and 81.

Mr. Murphy: The Government amendments in this group reflect comments made during earlier stages of the Bill and during our consultation with the Northern Ireland parties during the recess.
Amendment No. 77 addresses the feelings that many had that the Bill's provisions on excluding parties from office were too vague. In particular, it was felt that the ability to exclude a party because of the "likely failure" of its members to uphold the pledge of office was too hard to judge and could leave a party vulnerable to exclusion because of the behaviour of an individual.
The amendment makes it clear that exclusion under the provision is based on the Assembly's judgment of the party's policy and is possible if the Assembly believes that the party is not committed to its Ministers upholding the pledge of office. For example, a party might come up with a firm policy of not complying with the decisions of the Executive Committee or reject out of hand the provisions of the ministerial code of conduct.
Amendment No. 81 ensures that if the Secretary of State believes that the Assembly should consider a motion for exclusion, she must require the Presiding Officer to move a motion for the Assembly to debate and to vote on.
During earlier stages of the Bill in this place, hon. Members pointed out that the Bill gave the Secretary of State the option not to press for a motion for exclusion, even if she felt that one would be justified in the circumstances. Government amendment No. 79 is therefore purely a drafting point, making it clear that all resolutions under the clause will require cross-community support to be successful. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 82 agreed to.

Clause 24

DATES OF ELECTIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 83, in page 13, line 27, at end insert—
("(3A) An Assembly elected under this section or section (Extraordinary elections) shall meet within the period of eight days beginning with the day of the poll at which it is elected.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday and any day which is a bank holiday in Northern Ireland shall be disregarded.")

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 84 to 86 and 104.

Mr. Ingram: Once again, the amendments reflect the valuable debates that we have had on the Bill here and in the other place. Amendment No. 83 provides for the Assembly to meet within eight days of its election, and is clearly an essential amendment.
The broad theme of the group is the Secretary of State's exceptional powers to deal with crises in the devolved institutions. As it passed through the House during the earlier stages, the Bill included a number of such powers. The Secretary of State had the power to dissolve the Assembly and call fresh elections if she believed that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers were not able to carry out their functions. Similarly, the Secretary of State had the power to prorogue the Assembly without fresh elections.
During debates on the Bill, there was general agreement across the party divide in Northern Ireland that such powers amounted to planning for failure, which could prove counter-productive.
The people of Northern Ireland have made clear their views on the Belfast agreement. It is in no one's interests to be seen to undermine the structures that received such an overwhelming endorsement at the polls.
We have considered the views expressed in this place and from the parties, and the amendments accordingly remove the exceptional powers of the Secretary of State. The option of Westminster legislation always remains—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and the consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On today's Order Paper there is a business motion in the name of the Prime

Minister enabling the House to consider any messages and amendments from the Lords in respect of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Following the Government's defeat in another place, it is open to the Government to bring that Bill back for a fifth time. I understand that there has been a statement in another place, but there has been no statement in this House about the Government's intentions. Will the Home Secretary now explain to the House what he plans to do about the Bill?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As many right hon. and hon. Members will by now be aware, the decision of the House early this evening in respect of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which was carried by a majority of this House of 193, was rejected in the other place by a majority of 29.
The European Parliamentary Elections Bill has therefore been lost for this Session. It will be reintroduced in the next Session under the procedures of the Parliament Acts. Even so, to hold the June 1999 European elections under the regional list system, the Bill would have to receive Royal Assent by mid-January of next year. That can happen only with the co-operation of the Opposition parties.
If that co-operation is not forthcoming, the Government will still use the Parliament Acts to secure the Bill's enactment, but that would mean that the new system could not come into effect until 2004.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We must now move on—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it related to the statement?

Mr. Hogg: It is a matter of procedure, and I want to take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are in the middle of a strictly time-limited debate. The statement does not warrant further debate. I hope that he will be brief.

Mr. Hogg: I will indeed be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer you to page 308 of "Erskine May", and the passage that states:
Substantive interventions on points of order made by Ministers may be treated by the Speaker as statements, so that questions may be raised thereon and replies given.


We have had an intervention on a point of order by the Home Secretary, which clearly enables the House, if you give us consent, to ask questions of him. I ask you to exercise the discretion provided in "Erskine May" and enable us to treat that point of order as a statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The key word in the passage quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is "may". It depends entirely on the view that the Chair takes. My view is that we should now continue with the time-limited debate.

Northern Ireland Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Ingram: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your observations and instructions to Opposition Members, who clearly have no interest in this Northern Ireland legislation. They have entered the Chamber to rejoice about another matter, which they claim is about democracy. This legislation extends democracy to Northern Ireland, but Opposition Members are not prepared to listen to the debate.
Before the points of order, I pointed out that the option of Westminster legislation always remains if the devolved institutions are seen not to be working. However, we clearly do not want to work on that assumption from the start of the new Assembly. Amendment No. 85 therefore restructures the Bill's provisions on extraordinary elections, bringing them more into line with the provisions in the Scotland Bill.
Accordingly, the new clause leaves the power to call early elections with the Assembly, on a majority of two thirds of all Members—not just those who vote. In addition, a fresh election will be triggered if the Assembly fails to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks. Amendment No. 104 deletes altogether the Secretary of State's power to prorogue the Assembly. The other amendment in the group, No. 86, is consequential on the new provisions regarding extraordinary elections. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 84 to 86 agreed to.

Clause 27

VACANCIES

Lords amendment: No. 87, in page 14, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) The validity of any proceedings of the Assembly is not affected by any vacancy in its membership.").

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 88, 91 to 103 and 276.

Mr. Murphy: This is a rather large group of amendments covering with a series of related and technical issues, but dealing broadly with the powers, privileges and proceedings of the Assembly.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 96 concerning the Assembly's power to call witnesses and papers are relatively minor and technical. The most important is amendment No. 97. It enables the Presiding Officer to apply an oath to a witness, meaning that those giving untruthful answers will be guilty of perjury. Amendment


No. 87 makes it clear that the Assembly's proceedings will not be invalidated by any vacancies in its membership.
Several other amendments concern the Assembly's privileges. In line with the Scotland and Wales legislation, amendments Nos. 102 and 103 provide that those reporting the Assembly's proceedings will not be liable to conviction for contempt of court under the strict liability rule only if the reports are also "accurate" and "in good faith". Amendment No. 88 deals with the issue of disqualification, providing for cases of bankruptcy and mental illness along similar lines to the Scotland Bill.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 276 concern the Assembly's Standing Orders. They make it clear that the Standing Orders require cross-community support to be amended or repealed as well as made, and delete from schedule 6 redundant references to the Royal Assent. Amendment No. 92 alters the Bill's provisions on petitions of concern.
As the Bill stands, a petition of concern leads automatically to a vote on the issue, which then requires cross-community support in order to succeed. During consultation with the parties, it was made clear to us that they felt that paragraph 13 of strand 1 to the Good Friday agreement should enable petitions of concern to be dealt with by the Special Committee procedure set out in paragraph 11 of strand 1. The agreement provides for the paragraph 11 Committee to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with equality requirements, including the European convention on human rights and the Bill of Rights. This amendment requires the Assembly, through its Standing Orders, to set out procedures by which petitions of concern may be referred to such a Committee for scrutiny, and thus brings the Bill closer to the provisions of the agreement.
Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 are technical and concern remuneration of Assembly Members. Amendment No. 98 provides for higher salaries to be paid to holders of junior ministerial office. Amendment No. 99 provides for higher salaries to be paid to Members of the Assembly Commission. Amendment No. 100 sets out rules for continued payment of Members' salaries after dissolution. Amendment No. 101 is consequential on amendment No. 98. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Öpik: I have one point to make, relating to amendment No. 100. Although it deals primarily with remuneration, I understand that it also allows Members of the Assembly to keep their title and status during elections for the new Assembly. There is a contrast with Members of Parliament: even if they are re-elected, they are not MPs during the election.
I understand the remuneration point, but my slight concern is that the amendment's provisions favour incumbents at election times, and I presume that that reflects the fact that the Government have consulted with incumbents. I want to be clear about whether I have understood the amendment correctly and, if so, whether the Minister is concerned about that issue.

Mr. Ingram: My understanding of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes is the same.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 88 agreed to.

Clause 32

COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 89, in page 17, line 3, leave out ("the statutory functions conferred on the Commission;") and insert

("the functions conferred on the Commission by virtue of any enactment;")

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 90 and 272 to 275.

Mr. Ingram: This is a group of minor and technical amendments to the provisions for an Assembly Commission. The principal function of the Commission is to provide the Assembly—or to ensure that the Assembly is provided with—the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes.
The amendments enable the Commission to charge for goods and services, and make a number of other minor and technical changes to the provisions on bringing proceedings by, or against, the Commission; on the Commission's status as a Crown body; and on its functions. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister may draw my attention to an amendment in the group entitled "Miscellaneous and supplemental", but the Assembly Commission met the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, in relation to the exercise of control in the Stormont estate. I think that we have reached a mutually satisfactory arrangement, but it would be helpful if it was given to us from the Dispatch Box so that it is clear that the Commission will be in control—not only of Parliament buildings, but of the apron of land that goes down in front of Parliament buildings—so that no demonstrations can take place without the Assembly's permission.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Assembly Commission—other hon. Members may not know that—and has been involved in the debate about the Stormont estate. Discussions have been proceeding, and agreements that have been reached within those discussions will, of course, be honoured. I can give him that assurance from the Dispatch Box.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 90 to 104 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 105, after clause 43, to insert the following new clause—("Part IVA—

NSMC, BIC, BIIC ETC.

NORTH-SOUTH MINISTERIAL COUNCIL AND BRITISH-IRISH COUNCIL

.—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make such nominations of Ministers and junior Ministers (including where appropriate alternative nominations) as they consider necessary to ensure—

(a) such cross-community participation in the North-South Ministerial Council as is required by the Belfast Agreement; and


(b) such cross-community participation in the British-Irish Council as is so required.

(2) It shall be a Ministerial responsibility of a Minister or junior Minister nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to participate in the Council concerned in such meetings or activities as are specified in the nomination.
(3) Without prejudice to the operation of section 19, such a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned.
(4) A Minister may in writing authorise a Minister or junior Minister who has been nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter into agreements or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible.
(5) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall, as far in advance of each meeting of either Council as is reasonably practicable, give to the Executive Committee and to the Assembly the following information in relation to the meeting—

(a) the date;
(b) the agenda; and
(c) nominations made under subsection (1) for the purposes of the meeting.

(6) A Minister or junior Minister who participates in a meeting of either Council by reason of a nomination under this section shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, make a report—

(a) to the Executive Committee; and
(b) to the Assembly.

(7) A report under subsection (6)(b) shall be made orally unless standing orders authorise it to be made in writing.
(8) The Northern Ireland contributions towards the expenses of the Councils shall be defrayed as expenses of the Department of Finance and Personnel.
(9) In this section "participate" shall be construed—

(a) in relation to the North-South Ministerial Council, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement;
(b) in relation to the British-Irish Council, in accordance with the first paragraph 5 of Strand Three of that Agreement.")

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 108 and 158 to 160.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments relate to strands 2 and 3 of the agreement, and respond to points made when the Bill was being considered in the House and to consultations with the Northern Ireland parties. Together, the amendments introduce new clauses to replace clauses 65 to 67 in the Bill as it left this House.
Amendment No. 105 deals with the participation of Ministers and junior Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council. It incorporates a number of important points that I know have exercised the minds of many Northern Ireland Members. It requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure that participation in each of the councils is that which is required by the Belfast agreement, including, specifically, that participation be on a cross-community basis, as set out in paragraph 30 of strand 1. That is an important safeguard in ensuring that the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account when business is conducted in the councils.
Throughout consideration of the clauses, an important dimension has been the authority and accountability of Ministers participating in the North-South Ministerial Council. Before we went into recess, I told the House, and I repeat, that as a Minister I understand the importance of accountability—of the authority of decision making resting ultimately with the House of Commons and, in Northern Ireland's case, with the Assembly. Therefore, we have responded to a number of concerns that were expressed by hon. Members and by parties.
10.15 pm
The new clause makes it clear that Ministers and junior Ministers must act in accordance with relevant decisions of the Assembly and Executive Committee. It also requires openness and transparency in the operation of the council—an important aspect of accountability. The Assembly will be given advance notice of the date, agenda and nominations for each meeting, and Ministers will be required by law to report back afterwards.
Furthermore, the new clause makes it clear that Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council must act in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2 of the agreement. Paragraph 5 sets out the various levels at which Ministers will participate in the council, and paragraph 6 outlines the authority for such participation. It states that each side is to be in a position to take decisions within the defined authority of those attending, and that each side remains accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively, whose approval would be required for decisions going beyond Ministers' defined authority. The clause puts it beyond any doubt that Ministers have authority to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council only to the extent that such participation is in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2.
Amendment No. 106 ensures that the Assembly has power to legislate in respect of agreements or arrangements made in the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council. Under that part of the Bill, Ministers will be able not only to consult the Irish Government but, in relation to devolved matters, to conclude agreements and arrangements within the framework of the councils. The clauses do not confer the power to conclude treaties, or other agreements binding in international law. Where it is necessary for matters to be provided for in a treaty, that would be concluded by the British Government.
Amendment No. 106 also contains provision in relation to the accountability of the North-South Ministerial Council by making it clear that no agreement to establish a new implementation body shall come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly, in line with paragraph 12 of strand 2.
Amendment No. 107 deals with the British-Irish intergovernmental conference and requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure such cross-community attendance by Ministers and junior Ministers as is required by the agreement at meetings where excepted or reserved Northern Ireland matters are to be discussed.
It was a cause of some frustration that there was no involvement of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland when the British and Irish Governments previously


came together in the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. That is now being remedied in the new British-Irish intergovernmental conference.
Amendment No. 108 provides for the Secretary of State to make orders in respect of the initial north-south implementation bodies. The clause, as amended, applies only to the initial, agreed implementation bodies. Those bodies are to be agreed by representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government, and established formally by international treaties concluded between the British and Irish Governments. They will then need to be given any requisite capacities and functions in domestic legislation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is the purpose of the Secretary of State's power to make orders under the clause.
If further implementation bodies are agreed, it will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the necessary legislation.
I believe that the new institutions have the potential to develop positive relationships and practical co-operation in the island of Ireland, and in these islands, in a way that will deliver real benefits to all the people. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Robert McCartney: As the Minister will know, one of the great fears of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland relates to the subject matter of these provisions, especially given that the Government of the Republic of Ireland hold, in their present constitution, that it is a constitutional imperative to act under paragraphs 2 and 3 of that constitution to create a united Ireland to include the territory of Northern Ireland.
The Minister will also know that it has been the policy of successive British Governments to stand by the declaration of disinterest made in the joint declaration of 15 December 1993, in which the then British Government declared that they had no strategic, economic or selfish reason for remaining in Northern Ireland.
The Minister will be aware that the majority—pro-Union—community in Northern Ireland fear that the arrangements are intended to effect, in accordance with the policies that I have mentioned, a factually and functionally united Ireland, and that the implementation bodies currently being put in place are but the forerunners, or the thin edge of the wedge, intended to ease Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom as part of a transitional phase, recognised as such by one of the main participants in the agreement. I refer to Sinn Fein-IRA, which has repeatedly said that it views the agreement and the Bill as nothing more than a phase for the purpose of ensuring a transition to the ultimate objective of a united Irish socialist republic.
I do not have a copy of the Belfast agreement with me, but the Minister mentioned that under the terms of paragraph 6 each Minister would have power to make decisions within the limits of his authority. Under paragraph 6, would a Sinn Fein Minister appointed under the d'Hondt system with responsibility for, say, education, and acting according to a broad Government programme for the year, be entitled to enter into arrangements with his counterpart from the Dail and bind the Assembly, if he had made a decision within the limits of his authority? Or is the Minister saying that the provisions will ensure

that, ultimately, the Assembly will have to give authority and approval to any decision made by the relevant Minister?
I am particularly concerned about subsection (3) of the new clause that would be inserted if Lords amendment No. 105 were agreed to. It states:
Without prejudice to the operation of section 19, such a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned.
As the Minister will know, there is quite a distinction between a decision of the Assembly and a decision of the Executive Committee, but the proposed new clause suggests that either may give authority.
It is extremely important that the people of Northern Ireland should know whether the Assembly or the Executive will give ultimate approval, and if it is the latter, exactly what constitutes that "Executive"? Is it a Minister acting within the limits of his authority as part of the Executive? Is it a combined number of Ministers—the entire Executive, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister? What exactly is meant by "the Executive" in those circumstances?

Mr. Peter Robinson: This group of amendments constitutes not so much a group of amendments as a completely new Bill. The Minister is proposing to leave out the original clause 43 and to insert substantial new clauses, thereby demonstrating that the Bill is being entirely re-written. He could therefore assist the House by providing more details on this group of amendments than he has provided on previous groups.
Specifically, the wording of the amendments make it clear that the participants in both the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will be cross-community participants. I expect that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is to ensure that we do not have a Sinn Fein Minister going down on his or her own and taking decisions on his or her own. However, I have not read anything in the Bill saying that Northern Ireland Ministers must be unanimous in decisions on whether to agree provisions formulated with their counterparts in the Irish Republic.
The First Minister and Deputy First Minister—to take the example given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—might take along with them an Education Minister who might well be from Sinn Fein, so that two nationalists and one Unionist would be attending. Will a majority be sufficient to make a decision—or is that matter yet to be played for, in the Assembly's standing orders or in other provisions regulating Ministers' behaviour at those meetings? It is important—it is essential—that the matter be clarified.

Mr. Öpik: Is not the matter resolved by subsection (4) in Lords amendment No. 106, which states:
No agreement or arrangement to which this section applies entered into for the establishment after the appointed day of an implementation body shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly."?
Does not that mean that the Assembly will have to approve all the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned?

Mr. Robinson: I was dealing not with implementation bodies but with the North-South Ministerial Council. They are quite separate structures. I hope that I shall be able shortly to deal with implementation bodies.


My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Down mentioned his concerns about subsection (3) of Lords amendment No. 105, which can be read in many different ways. I can see nowhere within the provision a requirement that the Assembly's agreement be given beforehand or its approval be given afterwards.
The provision certainly allows for such approval to be given, and certainly requires Ministers to act if agreements have been reached. However, nowhere does it say that a Minister cannot act in reaching agreements in the north-south body unless the Assembly has reached a decision on such agreements. Neither does it say that a Minister must come back and seek the Assembly's approval. If there is to be accountability to the Assembly, there must be such requirements. Will the Minister explain his views on where accountability lies in the new clause?
I am mindful of the fact that, in the Ulster Unionist party manifesto, the party leader expressly stated that he and his party would secure two specific elements in an agreement on north-south councils. One was that north-south bodies would be accountable. The second was that they would be consultative, not executive. If they have implementation roles, they are executive, not merely consultative. To that extent, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has broken his election commitment.
I want to find out whether the other election commitment on accountability has also been broken. The issue is not that accountability should be allowed under certain circumstances, but that there should be accountability under all circumstances in the Assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like the Minister to look again at the new clause in amendment No. 105, which says:
Without prejudice to the operation of section 19, such a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has rightly pointed out that there is a difference between a decision made in the Assembly and a decision made in the Executive Committee. Not all Members of the Assembly would necessarily know of a decision made in the Executive Committee. Will a Minister have the power to act unilaterally with his colleague in the Dublin Government on a matter that has been agreed with the Northern Ireland Executive Committee rather than with the Assembly?
The new clause also says:
A Minister or junior Minister who participates in a meeting of either Council by reason of a nomination under this section shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, make a report".
There is a great difference between making a report and asking the Assembly to approve what has been done.
The new clause also says that the report will be made orally—not even in writing. There is no requirement for it to be agreed by the Assembly. There is a great difference between reporting something that has taken place and that matter taking place solely under the authority that the

Assembly has ratified. That causes us grave concern. I should like the Minister to tell us what he understands about those two issues.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be very brief. I am conscious of the fact that the time for the debate is limited, and we are dealing with very complicated matters. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) will remember that, on one occasion earlier in the proceedings, he quoted me, did not give way to me, said that he would give way later in his speech, forgot and then kindly came up to apologise to me. I am claiming the injury time that derives from that moment.
On this occasion, I am wholly on the side of the hon. and learned Member for North Down and the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I recognise the sensitivity of the issues that we are discussing. I noticed the Minister wince and look at the clock when he was asked for a fuller explanation. The time that we have to debate the amendments is wholly the fault of the Government. Unlike the three previous speakers, who oppose the agreement, I support it. I should be greatly in the Minister's debt if he gave a fuller account than has been given so far.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Any wincing or looking at clocks was entirely due to tiredness on my part, rather than any discourtesy intended to any hon. Members.
Some interesting points were made in Committee, on Report and during consultation. The issue is of considerable importance, particularly to the Unionist community. I shall do my best to address the concerns.
The part of the Bill that deals with such matters is now much bigger than it was before the summer; that is a direct consequence of consultation. I believe that the various points that I mentioned earlier go a long way towards addressing hon. Members' concerns.
Let me briefly reiterate some of those in general terms. Northern Ireland participation must be on a cross-community basis. That is vital, and it is written into strand 2 of the agreement. It means that, in any participation, a Unionist and a nationalist must take part, and there must be agreement between them before any decisions are reached.
Let us look at what we mean by decisions. Members asked about the role of the Executive Committee vis-a-vis the Assembly. We put into the Bill a specific reference to the various paragraphs of the agreement, such as paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. Paragraph 6 is especially significant, because it refers to "defined authority" and
the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction".
Clearly that is a reference to the Executive Committee.
Hon. Members will know that decisions that require any money, for example, must go back to the Assembly, because it is the Assembly that votes the money. Decisions that require any legislative action must also go back to the Assembly, because it is the Assembly that passes the laws and must therefore decide.
Hon. Members will also know that any new implementation body—that is a possibility, of course—has to be approved by the Assembly. Is it not also true


that any Minister worth his or her salt knows that, if he or she cannot carry the Assembly—on a cross-community basis, Unionists and nationalists—ultimately there will be no support for the proposal?
The north-south bodies and the implementation bodies that go with them—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister saying that the extent of accountability depends on the grace and favour of a Minister and whether he or she is, in the Minister's words, "worth his or her salt"? If the requirement is not legislative and if there is already money in the Minister's budget, there is no requirement for the Minister to go back and obtain the approval of the Assembly.

Mr. Murphy: There are other ways in which the Assembly itself can determine the methods by which Ministers will report back to it. For example, it is open to the Assembly, through its Standing Orders Committee, to authorise Ministers to report to the Executive Committee and the Assembly in writing. That is the purpose of Standing Orders. We do not put everything in the Bill—

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Murphy: No, I shall not, for a moment. I shall finish my point first; then, by all means, the hon. Gentleman may intervene again.
Of course the Assembly, as it develops its own way of working, will ensure that those things happen and that there is accountability. I also think—

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend has already asked to intervene. Who wants to speak first? I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Mr. Robinson: The Minister well knows the issue at stake. If a Minister has to be accountable to the Assembly, the Minister will have to bring his or her proposal there and gain cross-community support for it. That requires any proposal to be one that will enjoy the support of both Unionists and nationalists. If, on the other hand, it is up to the Assembly to pull the Minister into line, a Unionist, for instance, would have to get nationalist support to stop a nationalist Minister doing something pro-nationalist.

Mr. Murphy: There is a limit to how far we can build into legislation the way in which Ministers will operate. However, the new arrangements that we have made refer specifically to the agreement, which, after all, was voted on by the people in Northern Ireland. We also have a reference to the fact that laws cannot be passed or money spent without approval, and ultimately the Assembly, through its Standing Orders arrangements, can work out how best to set up the report-back procedures. The notice to be given to the Assembly is there, too. It is clear that people must act in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly. That is there in black and white in the Bill.
We were talking about outer space earlier, and anyone who came down from outer space to look at the provisions in the Bill and asked, "Does that mean that Ministers can go out and do what they like, willy-nilly?" would realise that

the answer was no, of course it does not. Ministers are properly accountable to the Assembly, but they must also take into account the cross-community aspect in terms of the North-South Ministerial Council and the Assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps I could adjudicate on who the Minister is giving way to. I call the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has made a point about the Standing Orders. If the Minister, under such circumstances, makes an arrangement, must he get the approval of the Assembly? Will that be in the Standing Orders?

Mr. Murphy: The Assembly itself will decide its own Standing Orders after devolution. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) are all Members of the Assembly. They will have an important role to play when the Standing Orders are approved by the full Assembly—or, indeed, when the Committee dealing with Standing Orders devises ways in which such matters can be expressed in detail.
We have made various changes to the Bill to ensure that the Minister acts in accordance with the Assembly or the Executive Committee, and acts in accordance in respect of finance and law making. In addition, the fact that a Unionist and nationalist Minister must attend such councils will provide plenty of opportunity to ensure that there is compromise and understanding between both sides, and accountability.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister crystallise the issue? Let us say that a Minister from the Northern Ireland Assembly goes down and meets his opposite number from the Dail—in whatever circumstances—and takes a decision that, under paragraph 6 of the Belfast agreement, he is entitled to do within the limit of his authority or remit. Having taken that decision and returned to Northern Ireland, is the Minister required to obtain the ratification of the Assembly for that decision, or does he merely have to report it and leave it to one or other of the two community parties to seek cross-community objection or support for it? Will the Assembly have the last word on a decision taken by a Minister within the limit of his authority, as prescribed by paragraph 6 of the Belfast agreement?

Mr. Murphy: Everything is in accordance with the Belfast agreement, and that is why paragraph 6 was so carefully worded. It states:
Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable".
First, he or she is not necessarily going down—they could be coming up in the North-South Ministerial Council. [Interruption.] That is a significant point. All this business about "going down" ignores the fact that


this will be a proper North-South Ministerial Council, reflecting interest north and south of the border—and, I hope, of benefit to people north and south of the border.
Similarly, meetings—wherever they are held—will be held on a cross-community basis. We are not talking about a single person. We are talking about people going together. It is clear to me—as, I am sure, it is to hon. Members—that, if people are going together, things will not be decided in contradistinction to one side or other of the Assembly. In addition, major—and not so major—decisions will require the finance that must be voted on by the Assembly. It could mean that the Assembly would have to vote on a law, or the decisions could be relatively minor and a law would not be necessary, but decisions could nevertheless be made within that defined authority. Ultimately, Ministers will have to report their actions to the Assembly and, if any Member decides to question that report within the rules that the Standing Orders of the Assembly lay down, it can debate the issues, as we can in the House.

Mr. McGrady: On that point, will the Minister confirm that paragraph (1) of amendment No. 106 states:
This section applies to any agreement or arrangement entered into by a Minister or junior Minister participating, by reason of a nomination under section (North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council)"?
Paragraph (4) of the amendment clearly states:
No agreement or arrangement to which this section applies entered into for the establishment after the appointed day of an implementation body shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly.
Is that not a self-evident requirement for the Assembly to approve any such actions?

Mr. Murphy: That certainly reinforces my arguments—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether we will ever persuade Ulster Democratic Unionist party Members that accountability is theirs. They have got it into their heads that it is not, and they will not be persuaded. We are doing all that we can to ensure that such accountability is provided for in the Bill, as far as it is congruent with the agreement. In addition, the Assembly has the matter in its own hands. By virtue of its Standing Orders and debates, it can ensure that such accountability is present. I see no problems with it.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down said that the provision will lead to a united Ireland and that it is all a slippery slope. Undoubtedly, a number of people in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland fear that. I think that they are misguided, because the whole basis of the agreement, for which people voted by a large majority, is consent. It is the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, within Northern Ireland, that will determine whether there is any such movement, not the provision under discussion. It will be decided not by the implementation bodies, or the North-South Ministerial Council, but by a vote of the people in Northern Ireland

to decide what they want to do. That is the very bedrock of the agreement and that is why people in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or nationalist, need not fear anything from the agreement or the Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 108 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 109, after clause 43, to insert the following new clause—Civic Forum—
.—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters.
(2) The arrangements so made shall not take effect until after they have been approved by the Assembly.
(3) The expenses of the Forum shall be defrayed as expenses of the Department of Finance and Personnel.
(4) In this section "the Forum" means the consultative Civic Forum established in pursuance of paragraph 34 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 157 and 380.

Mr. Murphy: Amendment No. 157 would delete the provisions on the civic forum from their current position in the Bill and amendment No. 109 amends them, moving them to a more prominent position.
The main differences with the new provisions are that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will now have a clear duty to establish the forum. The financial provisions have been tidied up and references to the forum representing the views of the community have been removed.
Amendment No. 380 is technical and would provide for any establishment of the civic forum during the shadow phase to carry forward after devolution.

Dr. Godman: I promise that I will be brief. I made an exceedingly brief speech earlier—I think that it lasted 60 seconds. I have spoken to representatives of voluntary organisations and trade unions, who believe that amendment No. 109 is a first-class initiative. I make the plea—I know that I do not have the support of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—that the forum be given adequate resources. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned financial provisions, but I believe that anything less than £500,000 could mean that the forum was nothing more than a talking shop.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) would be unwise to think that only those who oppose the agreement have expressed doubts about the civic forum. Throughout Northern Ireland—I speak also for those beyond the Unionist community—there are grave reservations about it. It is thought that the forum may exercise the prerogative of the harlot—power without responsibility—and constitute itself as an upper chamber.


Given recent events, the powers of upper chambers may have some reverberations in this Chamber this evening, but the good government of Northern Ireland will not be served by the establishment of a civic forum that comprises a group of self-confessed lobbyists who have nothing to do other than to do dream up schemes—many of them far removed from reality-with which to carry out a process of self-publicity for various purposes.
There is room for a body that would draw up reports or take advice from a wide spectrum of society—even from members of the self-appointed G7, which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, some elements of the trade unions and one or two others. The Assembly could usefully consult such a body.
However, it would be totally inimical to the future good government of Northern Ireland if members of the forum were led to believe that they were constituted as an upper chamber, that they inhabited the environs of Stormont, that they were the touchy-feely conscience of the Assembly or that they were a moral mirror for the elected Members.
At some point, people have to govern. In a democracy, the people who govern are those who were elected; they are not some collection of polyglot do-gooders. I fear that, unless the civic forum is given a specific remit and unless the parameters of its activities are defined, it will turn itself into not an aid to the Assembly but a body that will generate irritation without forwarding the good government of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It is important that we should know why the Bill contains provisions for a civic forum. During the negotiations, the participants were happily working and weaving the various levels of government into the proposed arrangements. They set up the Assembly, the ministerial structures and the committees.
After that, some parties froze—they went rigid. They went rigid because they—principally the Women's Coalition and the Ulster Democratic party—realised that there was a possibility that they might not have their day in the sun, so they devised this little initiative: a mechanism whereby political rejects could get in on the act.
To quote the Minister, any politician worth his or her salt should be in touch with all the interest groups in the day-to-day discharge of his or her duties. It is politicians' job to know what their constituency feels about the economy, culture or any other issue affecting the day-to-day life of the Assembly. The purpose of the civic forum was simply to provide jobs for the boys and, in this case, especially the girls.
The forum is no more than a talking shop: it has no executive function, and no function at all beyond giving an extremely limited range of people the chance to whisper in Assembly Members' ears their views on a limited range of issues. There is a clause that allows the forum to be expanded if the Assembly so wishes, but it is clear who the Government want to be in the forum. The groups that the Minister has outlined would certainly not be representative of the community as a whole. It would be vital for a body specifically charged with expressing views on a range of issues to be representative, but, unless there is a significant change, that will not be the case.
Wherever the forum meets, it should not do so in parliamentary buildings. It is vital that it should never be perceived as a second chamber of the Assembly. That was never intended to be its role, but, if it were to be housed in the Parliament buildings—in the Senate Chamber, for instance—there is absolutely no doubt how it would see itself and how others would see it. It must be kept as a body to be consulted on issues about which the Assembly specifically asks it for its views, and it should not generate its own agenda.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We discussed this at some length at earlier stages of the Bill. When the Minister met us, he was in no doubt about the position that those associated with me in the Assembly took. I know that others spoke to him who differ with me about the agreement but share my views on the civic forum. They agree that it should not be a colossal quango, priding itself on being the House of Lords in the new Assembly, keeping everybody right.
One of the leading proponents of the forum says that adequate money must be set aside to allow it to journey from place to place and meet in venues throughout the country. The forum will not be an elected body, because those who want to be on it are unelectable. They have tried and failed: some of them have changed parties and flown various flags of convenience, but they have still been rejected.
To my amazement, I read in the newspaper the other day that a candidate who was defeated in the Assembly elections demanded that a place be made for him because his contribution was so valuable that Northern Ireland could not succeed without him. The people did not think so—he put himself up to be elected, and the people defeated him. We are also told that the chairman of the new civic form is to be a person of great power, equal to the Speaker of the Assembly.
The time has come when the people should be told about the forum, whose membership is to be nominated by the First Minister and his deputy. I am glad that the Bill has retained the provision that the membership also has to be approved by the Assembly, because it means that the nominees will have to get the Assembly's vote. In addition, I believe that the Assembly will have some power, through the proposed commission to look after the property of Stormont, to prevent the forum from meeting in the Parliament buildings. I understand that the forum has said that the old forum building must be put at its disposal, but it might not be big enough for its members' offices.
We should be perfectly clear: if the people want the forum and if the Government want it, as they evidently do, its lines of operation should be clearly marked. It should not be allowed to damage the Assembly, or hinder the Assembly in the work that it was elected to do.

11 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy: The agreement referred to a consultative civic forum, and that is what it is. It is not an elected body, nor is it a rival to the Assembly, nor a second chamber. It is a civic forum, comprising, I should hope, people of a wide range of views, backgrounds and experiences in Northern Ireland. Some of those sectors—trade unionism, business and the voluntary sector—have been mentioned in the agreement, but other sectors may be included, as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and approved by the Assembly.


I believe that nothing but good can come of the forum. It is similar to the Economic and Social Council of the European Union. We have had inquiries from other parts of the country, including Wales, about how the forum might operate, but that is a matter for the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Members of the Assembly to determine. I am quite convinced that they will come up with the best ideas about how to form the body and what it should do. It will enhance, not replace, democracy in Northern Ireland.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 44

CONSOLIDATED FUND OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords amendment: No. 110, in page 23, line 15, after ("to") insert ("section 46 and to")

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 111 to 122 and 381.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments relate to the financial provisions contained in the Bill, and several reflect the undertaking I gave the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to consider his proposals for expanding and improving the audit controls. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful proposals, the bulk of which are now reflected in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 117 are chiefly technical and drafting amendments, which clarify how the default provision will work. We introduced the provision to safeguard public services in the event of the Assembly's being unable to agree a budget or pass appropriation measures. Amendment No. 110 makes it clear that the default mechanism will begin to operate if the Assembly cannot agree on expenditure for the forthcoming financial year by three working days before the end of the current financial year. Amendments Nos. 114 and 116 clarify the upper limits on expenditure once the default mechanism has come into play: 75 per cent. of the previous year's total for expenditure on account, and 95 per cent. of the previous year's expenditure for a whole year in default of an appropriation measure.
The principal changes to the audit arrangements are in amendment No. 118, which sets out the basic audit provisions that all future Northern Ireland legislation is required to continue in operation. It is not possible for practical reasons to entrench existing audit legislation: the Assembly must be able to amend it from time to time because, for instance, Treasury requirements may change. In addition, it has been a transferred matter since 1921, and there is no justification for going against the Belfast agreement and reserving it now.
Nevertheless, the Assembly will be responsible for large amounts of public money, for which it must be fully and publicly accountable. It should not be free to abolish audit controls or so to dilute them that they become ineffective. I have to say that I have no fear at present

that the Assembly will do any such thing, but the Scotland Bill constrains the Scottish Parliament from abolishing its controls, and a similar provision is justified for this Bill.
Amendment No. 118 will require future Northern Ireland legislation to provide, among other things, for proper accounts to be prepared in respect of payments in and out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, for accounting officers to be designated in Northern Ireland Departments, and for accounts to be audited, certified, published and laid before the Assembly. It will also require the Assembly to establish the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, with similar duties, and it will establish the independence of anyone other than the Comptroller and Auditor-General who is charged with the audit function, because a proportion of audit work is put out to private firms.
Amendment No. 119 will buttress the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself, and will prevent the Assembly from making a recommendation to the Queen for his removal from office, unless there is a vote in favour of so doing supported by two thirds of the total number of Assembly Members entitled to vote. Amendment No. 121 will ensure that the Assembly cannot manipulate him by reducing his salary. Amendment No. 122 will protect the independence of the Northern Ireland Audit Office by the establishment of a special Assembly Committee to examine its expenses, as the Public Accounts Commission does for the National Audit Office here.
Taken together, this package will ensure the integrity of the audit controls over public expenditure in Northern Ireland in the years to come. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for drawing to my attention the desirability of replicating the Scotland Bill model as far as possible, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 111 to 122 agreed to.

Clause 54

THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 123, in page 26, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall, before the end of the period of two years beginning with the commencement of this section, make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as it thinks fit for improving—

(a) its effectiveness;
(b) the adequacy and effectiveness of the functions conferred on it by this Part; and
(c) the adequacy and effectiveness of the provisions of this Part relating to it.")

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 124 and 125, amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 136 and 277 to 280.
I must inform the House that Lords amendments Nos. 277 and 278 involve privilege.

Mr. Murphy: The Government received extensive representations on the Floor of the House and during the


summer months on the human rights issue, and we received many amendments to the Bill on that subject. We have introduced amendments of our own which meet many of the concerns that have been expressed.
A powerful case was made for an extension of the Human Rights Commission's functions and powers beyond what is currently provided for in the Bill. We have not closed our minds on that, and we therefore introduced amendment No. 123 to require the commission, no later than two years after its establishment, to review the adequacy of its powers.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 132 go together. Amendment No. 124 makes clear on the face of the Bill the ability of the Human Rights Commission to bring proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights, but amendment No. 132 ensures that this provision does not override the need for a "victim" under the Human Rights Act 1998. In exercising its various functions as laid down in the clause, we would expect that a normal part of the way the commission operates will be to carry out investigations. Amendment No. 125 provides for that.
As my colleague Lord Williams of Mostyn explained in the other place, the Government will co-operate fully with any investigation undertaken by the commission. We shall provide it with any information and documents necessary to such an investigation, subject only to adequate arrangements being made to protect information where confidentiality is required, and to safeguard national security, public safety and public order.
Amendment No. 126 widens the ambit of clause 55 so that the commission will be able to assist persons in any proceedings which, in the view of the commission, involve either the law or practice relating to protection of human rights. Amendments Nos. 127 to 131 are technical improvements, which ensure that the Bill will allow the commission to assist "persons" rather than individuals, and that will allow the commission to assist incorporated bodies as well as individual people.
I have already mentioned amendment No. 132. Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 are technical amendments, which ensure that the Human Rights Commission can bring proceedings in cases involving non-European convention on human rights issues. Amendment No. 136 provides that the Advocate-General for Scotland is exempt from restrictions, as well as the other Law Officers listed.
There are four amendments to schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 are technical, and will make it possible for employment by the commission to fall within the terms of a superannuation scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972. Amendments Nos. 279 and 280 are simple drafting amendments that improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of the schedule.
There are also some issues relating to the Human Rights Commission on which we did not introduce amendments, but on which we believe that we should take the opportunity to clarify our position. We have been asked about the role of the commission as amicus curiae. Courts will be free to ask the commission to provide assistance as amicus under the normal rules that apply. However, that is not a matter for the Bill, but for the court in individual cases.
There has also been considerable debate on the commission's role in scrutinising draft legislation. Under clause 11, all Bills introduced in the Assembly will be

sent to the commission as soon as is reasonably practicable after their introduction. That does not prevent the sponsors of legislation from involving the commission earlier, before a first draft of a Bill appears. Certainly the Government would expect to consult the commission at an early stage on any proposal for Westminster legislation that touched on human rights issues in Northern Ireland.
We have no reason to doubt that sponsors of Bills in the Assembly will do the same. Before draft legislation is introduced, its referral to the commission is not a matter for the Assembly, and the Bill clearly cannot regulate what the Assembly should do. I hope that that explanation answers most of the outstanding issues.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for much of what he has just said, and for his clarification of several issues. He has put the Government's intentions into Hansard, and the courts will therefore have to pay attention to them. However, I am concerned about several points.
First, the amendments will considerably extend the role and purpose of the commission. Will it have sufficient funds to carry out its functions? We have heard figures bandied about of less than £1 million, a sum that would not be sufficient to achieve a proper inquiry in some cases. What will be the financial restraints? Will the money come from the Treasury, or from the Northern Ireland grant, on which there are other pressures?
Secondly, I want to be sure that I correctly understood my hon. Friend's final point on Westminster legislation. The Belfast agreement said that the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would have
an extended and enhanced role beyond that currently exercised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, to include keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of laws and practices, making recommendations to Government as necessary".
My hon. Friend the Minister said that any proposed legislation affecting human rights and concerning Northern Ireland that passed through this House would go to the Human Rights Commission.
11.15 pm
I hope that I have understood that correctly, because, if that is the case, it would overcome some of the difficulties that have arisen in the statement of my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. He said of the proposal that Westminster legislation should go to the Human Rights Commission:
We do not think that that is necessary because Westminster Bills will be subject to the regime proposed in the Human Rights Bill to ensure that Ministers consider their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 1998; Vol. 594, c. 1536.]
Of course, it is possible that legislation emanating from Westminster and affecting Northern Ireland may be within the European convention on human rights, but not within human rights and other legislation as it is concerned with Northern Ireland and its Human Rights Commission.
I turn briefly to the amendment that has caused most concern, a matter on which I have the support of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who sadly is now in St. Thomas's hospital. I am sure that all my colleagues send him their good


wishes, and hope that he will have a speedy recovery. Had he been here, he would have been vociferous on this amendment because of his concern for human rights in Northern Ireland and the amendment arising from the Tinnelly case, which, as he was quick to point out, had many of the aspects of exclusion orders.
The thrust of the amendment in my name to Lords amendment No. 125 seeks to strengthen the role of the Human Rights Commission. It provides that, when initiating an investigation, the commission can subpoena witnesses and demand the production of documents.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State failed to deal with that main issue. In correspondence with me, he said that the matter was not dealt with completely in the agreement. In fact, in the section entitled "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", in paragraph 4, the agreement says:
The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission … will be invited to consult and advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland"—
that is the first point, which my hon. Friend has dealt with—
drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience.
The basic documents on international rights and experience are the Paris principles.
My hon. Friend will probably be aware of a letter sent on 18 June by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which he kindly placed in the Library. The High Commissioner, who one would think would have broad knowledge of these matters, says:
While this responsibility does not generally require the relevant institutions"—
that is, human rights commissions—
to make binding decisions (which for constitutional reasons are generally reserved to the courts) it is common practice to accord these Commissions powers to conduct investigations effectively by compelling the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, if necessary. Such powers would, in my view, clearly be appropriate for the new institutions envisaged by the Multi-Party Agreement.
My hon. Friend and the parties to the agreement say that they will look for international standards. The minimum international standards are laid down in the Paris principles. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has written to the Prime Minister stating that the powers are minimum requirements, and that she would expect to see them in the agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that we cannot depart from the agreement, as there does not seem to be much agreement on the matter, but all the parties agreed on the minimum international standards, and the United Nations High Commissioner says that these are the minimum international standards.
We have been let down. I know that my hon. Friend said that, in two years, the Human Rights Commission can examine the situation, and may recommend those powers. I believe that provision for the powers is contained in the agreement as a minimum international standard. The High Commissioner agrees.
My hon. Friend states in correspondence with me that there is not sufficient consensus among the parties to the agreement. However, all the parties agreed to what was in the agreement. That is the first point. Secondly, which people have not come out in favour of it?
Sadly—perhaps because we are dealing with human rights—there are no hon. Members present from the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party or the United Kingdom Unionist party. I regret that. They should be present to answer these points. The Ulster Unionist party is the only party to the agreement that has not come out explicitly in favour of the commission having those powers, despite what is in the agreement. Even if the UUP is the only party to the agreement that is not involved, surely sufficient consensus does exist. Does that mean that the party has a veto on the issue?
The second point that I invite my hon. Friend to answer is why the Government took the position that the sufficient consensus rule applied when effective enforcement powers are required by the UN Paris principles, which they know were the minimum standards. I do not understand the Government's position. I welcome most of what my hon. Friend said about the improvement of the clauses, but the right of the Human Rights Commission to hold inquiries is fundamental.
I know that the Government will co-operate in every way, as they have said, subject to national security and so on. They will produce the documents and provide the information. If cases arise and the commission is involved under the rules of procedure, it can compel the discovery of documents and subpoena witnesses. I understand that as well.
However, with respect to the commission's power to hold inquiries, it is starting off in the knowledge that it cannot oblige people to attend and give evidence, or enforce the discovery of documents. It will be hampered from the outset, and people will be able to cock a snook at it. If, in two years, the commission begins an inquiry and decides that it needs the powers, the Government will say that legislation is necessary.
I can see no powers to make statutory orders to change the authority of the Human Rights Commission. If that is the case, we will be fighting for places on the statute book—unless the Assembly decides to introduce such provisions. However, that same negative force, the Ulster Unionist party, could prevent their introduction through Assembly legislation. That is why we have ring-fenced human rights legislation within Westminster: the Assembly will be at the beck and call of particular pressure groups not to get legislation on the statute book.
I urge my hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to consider carefully the contents of the Belfast agreement and Mary Robinson's letter, and to decide whether we want to hobble the Human Rights Commission in this way.

Mr. McGrady: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He has presented his detailed case with great clarity, and left nothing out of the argument on behalf of his amendment.
The establishment of the Human Rights Commission is extremely welcome and significant because it places human rights issues centre stage. That subject has been the cause of much conflict in Northern Ireland and the


Republic of Ireland. To his credit, I confess that the Minister has entered into much consultation about the Lords amendments, and has addressed many human rights issues that were raised in a debate in this place in the last few weeks of July.
Therefore, I shall confine myself to asking the Minister several questions to which I hope he will respond this evening. First, does the Minister accept that, by not granting the commission the power of discovery of documents and the power to compel witness attendance—as my hon. Friend pointed out—it will have fewer powers than are recommended in the United Nations Paris principles, which outline the good practice for national human rights institutions?
Secondly, does the Minister accept that the proposed powers are less than those granted to the health and safety bodies, for example, that are already extant in the north of Ireland? That is the situation under the legislation. Thirdly, does the Minister agree that it is desirable that the commission should enjoy the powers of discovery and compulsion in due course? If the commission requests those powers in the two-year review, will the Government respond positively?

Mr. Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend the Member for Hull. North (Mr. McNamara) raised several points. He referred to the funding of the Human Rights Commission. We have in mind an indicative figure of £750,000 for the commission's annual budget. That figure will remain under review, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that the commission is properly funded to carry out its functions under the Bill, within the normal constraints of public expenditure control—to which we are all subject. I confirm that my hon. Friend's comments about Westminster legislation were accurate.
The main issue that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised related to the proposal to give the Human Rights Commission the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the power of discovery of documents. That significant issue was discussed, not just in the House, but during the recess in several meetings with Members of Parliament, the Northern Ireland political parties, various interest groups and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Many people and institutions were involved in discussions about the matter.
We concluded, however, that, because that issue was not specifically referred to in the agreement, and because it was a significant issue in itself, we were not in a position to accede to including it in,the Bill. There was not sufficient consensus as a result of the consultation processes to which I have referred.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the arrangements, the provisions and the legislation to protect human rights in Northern Ireland are, at present, much better than the provisions for any other region of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Murphy: I am sure they are, and 1 sincerely hope that, as a consequence of the Bill, they will be even more so. I am convinced that the people who drew up the agreement, those of us who were in the talks and the

people who voted on the agreement believe that the human rights provisions are an important aspect of it, as are the equality provisions.

Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend say where we have drawn, as appropriate, on international instruments and experience, and what his reaction is to what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described as necessary attributes to the Bill?

Mr. Murphy: I do not for one second underestimate the significance of the contributions made by international institutions on these matters. All I am saying is that, where the agreement is silent, it is incumbent on us to consult with all the political parties and Governments who were involved in the talks process, and to come to a conclusion about whether such a proposal would have achieved sufficient consensus had the talks continued. I cannot give an assurance to the House, however, because no such consensus emerged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from the agreement referring specifically to paragraph 4 at page 17. That is clearly concerned with the commission's consideration of a future Bill of rights. I am absolutely clear that there is a great deal of merit in what my hon. Friend says, and in the representations that have been made to us. That is why the Government have not closed their mind to a review, after two years, if the Human Rights Commission tells us that it cannot do its work without those powers, or that it could do its work much more effectively if those powers were granted to it.
We do not know what the Human Rights Commission is likely to say in two years, any more than I know what the Government will say in response to the commission. All I am saying is that the opportunity exists, the door is not closed and the points have been well made.
Although we cannot incorporate a review into the Bill because there was insufficient consensus, I believe that much in the Bill that refers to human rights puts Northern Ireland on a much higher plane than all other parts of the United Kingdom and many other countries in Europe and the world. As a consequence, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will not seek to move his amendment to amendment No. 125. We shall await developments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 124 to 136 agreed to.

Clause 58

THE EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords amendment: No. 137, in page 28, line 9, leave out ("members") and insert ("Commissioners").

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 138 to 143 and 281 to 323.

Mr. Murphy: This large group of amendments deals with equality. Like human rights, that is an important


feature of the Belfast agreement, and has given rise to intensive debate and scrutiny at all stages of the Bill in the Commons and in the Lords. The amendments make the Bill more effective, and bring it more clearly into line with the agreement.
When the Bill was under discussion in this House, much attention was paid to the provisions that sought to create a new equality commission and a statutory obligation on the public sector to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. Since the summer, I have discussed those issues with hon. Members on both sides of the House and with all political parties that are represented in the Assembly. In addition, I have held discussions with SACHR, the chairs of existing equality bodies and, on several occasions, delegations from other bodies and trade unions.
Those discussions have been most productive. They have led to many Government amendments in the other place, which we now have to consider. The Government have shown themselves to be flexible in responding to constructive suggestions. We believe that the amendments greatly improve the equality of opportunity provisions, and we are grateful to all who have contributed to the consultative process.
Amendments to clauses 58 and schedule 10 amend the powers and procedures of the new unified equality commission. They also give persons serving on the commission the titles of chief commissioner, deputy chief commissioner and commissioner.
Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 will require a copy of the commission's annual report to be laid before Parliament as well as the Assembly. In addition, the report will have to give details of steps taken during the year by the commission and by other public authorities to promote equality of opportunity. The Government expect other public authorities to co-operate fully with the equality commission in the preparation of that aspect of the annual report, providing the necessary information on their compliance with the new statutory obligation.
I turn to the group of amendments on clause 60 and schedule 10, which deal with the equality of opportunity obligation. Although the principle of a statutory obligation was endorsed by the Good Friday agreement and has been widely accepted by non-governmental organisations, trade unions and others in Northern Ireland, there has been considerable debate about the detail of the proposal; it was the subject of much discussion in Committee. I gave undertakings to consider a number of issues that had been raised and particularly to see whether the Bill could take on board the substantive points of the two new clauses that had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and other hon. Members.
There has been much consultation on those matters during recent months. The amendments to clause 60 and schedule 10 that were passed by the other place reflect the outcome of that consultation, providing for much more detail in equality schemes about arrangements for assessing and consulting on the impact of policies. In making decisions on policies, such assessments and

consultation must be taken into account. Five-yearly reviews of equality schemes will be required. These amendments integrate the substance of the Committee stage new clauses 4 and 5 that we considered earlier in the year.
Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 to clause 60 substitute a new definition of "public authority" for purposes of the clause. They make it clear that the statutory obligation is not confined to Northern Ireland public authorities, but can also include UK Departments such as the Northern Ireland Office, and UK-wide public authorities that carry out functions relating to Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 directly impose a requirement on public authorities, whether they exist now or come into being in the future, to prepare equality schemes. In Committee, it had been argued that the initial request from the commission to prepare a scheme was not fully consistent with the agreement. That issue has now been addressed.
Apart from equality schemes, the other main aspect of schedule 10 is the arrangement whereby the commission can challenge a public authority's equality scheme and investigate complaints. Amendments Nos. 316, 318 and 322 require the Assembly to be notified at relevant stages of that process. Amendment No. 323 creates a special procedure for dealing with problematic schemes and complaints where they concern the Northern Ireland Office and other UK Government Departments. That is to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State must reach a decision or issue a direction in a case involving her Department or that of a Cabinet colleague.
Those are the significant amendments relating to clause 60 and schedule 10. We believe they have greatly improved the Bill and will impose significant obligations on the public sector in Northern Ireland, with real change in the culture of administration.

Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the progress that has been made. He has gone as far as possible towards meeting the points that we made in Committee, and those made in another place. However, I should like him to confirm a couple of small points.
Where the commission still has power to make exemptions in regard to schemes, will the exemptions apply only when the body that is expected to produce a scheme is part of, or a subsidiary of, a larger body that will produce a scheme covering the subsidiary? I am thinking of, for example, a local authority and a committee, or sub-committee, of that authority. Will the only other exemption—in terms of public authorities—relate to notional circumstances in which a United Kingdom Department would be active in Northern Ireland, but the range and scope of its activity would be so small as to be negligible? Are those the only exemptions that my hon. Friend envisages?

Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy in listening to what we have said about the amendments that we tabled in Committee, and for the consultation in which he has engaged. I feel that the amendments bring the Bill into line with the Belfast agreement.


For the record, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm what was said by Lord Dubs in another place? Lord Dubs said:
To clarify the position, it is the Government's intention that impact assessments
under schedule 10
should relate to the whole range of a public authority's policy",
not just to
policies aimed at promoting equality of opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 810.]
Lord Dubs also said that, in the Government's view, nothing in the Bill
renders unlawful what would be lawful affirmative action under the existing fair employment, equal opportunities and race relations law … The justification for affirmative actions is that they are necessary to correct existing disadvantage or imbalance in equality of opportunity.
Lord Dubs added that the Government were confident that the clauses did not hinder affirmative actions when they were
properly directed at promoting equality of opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 713.]
It would be helpful to have that on the record.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is welcome that, during the recess, the Minister was prepared to meet and consult many bodies that are involved in the equality issue. Will he tell us, however, whether all the bodies that will be dissolved under the legislation—the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council-are content with the proposals in the Lords amendments? Have all, or some, of those bodies some reservations? Do they feel that the Government's proposals will not achieve their ends?
Will the Minister confirm that working groups will be involved? If so, it would be helpful to know when those groups are expected to report to the Government, and whether the Minister envisages further change as a result of their activities.

Mr. Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to questions that he had raised about the exemption of public authorities from the requirement to prepare schemes. We intend the exemption to be used only in rare circumstances—for instance, when public authorities' activities in Northern Ireland are minimal, and the effort involved in preparing the scheme involved, and having it validated by the commission, would be disproportionate. In other circumstances, it might make sense to exempt a public authority. For instance, all sub-committees of district councils are defined as public authorities. Provided that their activities were fully covered by district councils' own equality schemes, an exemption could avoid each sub-committee having to draw up its own scheme.
11.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) mentioned affirmative action. Clause 60 in no way calls into question the ability of public authorities to take affirmative action in appropriate cases

to correct disadvantage. Affirmative action in appropriate circumstances is an important method of combating inequality, and it is our firm intention that that should remain so. The clause does not call that into question, and does not render unlawful what would be lawful affirmative action under current anti-discrimination legislation.
Furthermore, clause 60 means that public authorities are bound to have regard to the need for affirmative action when considering their duty under the clause. An exemption for affirmative action is therefore unnecessary.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned the current status of the equality commission. As he knows, the four separate commissions in Northern Ireland—dealing with disability, fair employment, gender and race—have expressed various concerns about the future nature of the structures. Nevertheless—to be fair—the fair employment commission believed that the proposals provide the best option.
We received many representations from the bodies, and on a number of occasions I have met the chairs of all four commissions. The chairs, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have agreed that an independent chair—Dr. Stringer, from Edinburgh—should be appointed. In the next couple of months, Dr. Stringer will go and work with the four commission chairs, examine the structures that we have to deal with and devise the best possible structure—which will be one that is accepted by all the commissions and by the wider community in Northern Ireland. The proposal seems now to be generally accepted by the commissions. I look forward to the report, which I hope will be available fairly speedily.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 138 to 143 agreed to.

Clause 61

DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 144, in page 29, line 27, leave out ("discharging") and insert ("carrying out")

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 145 to 156 and 385.

Mr. Murphy: Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 149 relate to clause 61, which prevents discrimination by public authorities on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. They are all technical amendments that improve the comprehensiveness and consistency of the clause's provisions.
The group of six amendments—Lords amendments Nos. 150 to 155—all relate to clause 62, which prevents organisations from requiring individuals to make certain oaths and declarations. They, too, are all simple, technical and drafting amendments.
Lords amendment No. 156 relates to clause 63, and slightly increases the circumstances in which restrictions or investigations into complaints should not apply. The restrictions will, as a consequence of the amendment,


not apply to investigations into the aiding and inciting of discrimination and will not apply to investigations into discrimination itself.
Lords amendment No. 385 is a technical amendment to schedule 14.
In moving the Lords amendments, I should like to commend the organisations and parties that have in the past few months been consulted by the Government and had many discussions and negotiations with me and my ministerial colleagues. They have very positively helped to strengthen the Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 145 to 160 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 161, after clause 68, to insert the following new clause—Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts—
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of—

(a) any provision of an Act of the Assembly which is not, or may not be, within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or
(b) any purported exercise by a Minister or Northern Ireland department of his or its functions which is not, or may not be, a valid exercise of those functions.

(2) An order under this section may—

(a) make provision having retrospective effect;
(b) make consequential or supplementary provision, including provision amending or repealing any Northern Ireland legislation, or any instrument made under such legislation;
(c) make transitional or saving provision."

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 167 to 177 and 201 to 204.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments concern delegated powers. Most of them are technical. However, amendment No. 171 deals with a provision that has caused some concern and considerable debate. The issue has been raised in earlier debates.
Old clause 71, drawing on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, permitted orders in council to make provision about any reserved matter. We have re-examined the issue, taking into account the views expressed by various parties, and come to the conclusion that there is still a need to retain some of those powers. However, we have taken into account the views expressed and have cut back the matters that can be covered and introduced a consultation mechanism by which the views of the Assembly can also be taken into account. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Öpik: Amendment No. 169 refers to deleting the phrase "United Kingdom". That is not a great problem, but there is still an inconsistency in some places about how Ireland is referred to. That has caused problems in

the past. In one notorious legal case—Ellis v. O'Dea—papers demanding the extradition of an Irish suspect to the UK were turned down on appeal in the Dublin courthouse because they referred to the Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland. We must be meticulous in ensuring that the phrases that we use are consistent.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that orders in council that might be forthcoming on fair employment will not be implemented until the Assembly has had an opportunity to look at them?

Mr. Ingram: There is no inconsistency on the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). We refer to the Government of Ireland, except when the word "Republic" is required for clarity. The parliamentary draftsmen have been precise, and are conscious of the problem.
Any matters that remain to be dealt with before the Assembly comes into place will need to be proceeded with. The Government still have important issues to deal with. We have to proceed as best we can on the present basis before the full Assembly is up and running. The Government intend to legislate on fair employment before devolution is fully in place.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 69

POWERS OF COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO VARY RETROSPECTIVE DECISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 162, in page 33, line 32, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 36 and insert—
("(a) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; and
(b) where the decision mentioned in subsection (1) relates to a devolution issue (within the meaning of Schedule 11), the appropriate authority,
unless the person to whom the notice would be given is a party to the proceedings.
(5) A person to whom notice is given under subsection (4) or, where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly")

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 163 to 166, 324 to 347 and 383. I must inform the House that Lords amendment No. 347 involves privilege.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments relate to judicial proceedings. We have provided rights for the devolved authorities to be represented on devolution issues under schedule 11, in consideration of the powers of the courts to vary retrospective decisions under clause 69. We have also added to the list of devolution issues so that all questions appropriate for this special procedure are covered. There is a clause to guide the courts in the interpretation of Assembly Bills. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 163 to 177 agreed to.

Clause 73

CONSULTATION AND CO-ORDINATION

Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 36, line 24, leave out
("and for making any necessary financial adjustments")

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 192, 196 to 200, 205 to 221, 349 to 363, 365 to 372, 378, 379, 384 and 386 to 417.

Mr. Ingram: I do not intend to deal specifically with all the amendments, but the group features many miscellaneous provisions, several consequential on changes of substance earlier in the Bill. They include further provision to permit proper co-ordination between the social security systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, several additions to the list of provisions to commence on the passing of the Bill, further guidance on interpretation, and a range of consequential changes to existing legislation, resulting from the Bill's main provisions. I commend all the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 192 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 193, after clause 74, to insert the following new clause—("Discrimination: certificates by Secretary of State—
.—(1) This section applies where in any proceedings—

(a) a person claims that an act discriminated against him in contravention of section 19 or 61; and
(b) the person against whom the claim is made proposes to rely on a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying—

(i) that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order; and
(ii) that the doing of the act was justified by that purpose.


(2) The claimant may, in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chancellor, appeal against the certificate to the Tribunal, that is to say, the tribunal established under section (The Tribunal)").
(3) If on an appeal under subsection (2) the Tribunal determines

(a) that the act specified in the certificate was done for the certified purpose; and
(b) that the doing of the act was justified by that purpose, the Tribunal shall uphold the certificate; in any other case, the Tribunal shall quash the certificate.

(4) If—

(a) the claimant does not appeal against the certificate; or
(b) the certificate is upheld on appeal,

the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the matters certified by it.
(5) In this section "act" does not include the making, confirmation or approval of a provision of subordinate legislation.")

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 194, amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 195, 348 and 382. Lords amendments Nos. 194 and 348 involve privilege.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments establish a new tribunal to which an individual can appeal if the Secretary of State

issues a national security, public safety or public order certificate. The provisions were introduced during the Lords stages, so I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I spend a little time explaining their background and purpose. That will also set the context for dealing with the views likely to be expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the amendment that he has tabled to amendment. No. 194.
The tribunal originates from the European Court of Human Rights ruling this summer in the Tinnelly and McElduff cases. In that ruling, the United Kingdom was found to be in breach of article 6 of the convention because no right of appeal exists against certificates issued under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland Act) 1976.
The Government recognised that the certification powers in the Bill, which restate the long-standing powers in section 23 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, were deficient in the light of that ruling. The new tribunal is intended to ensure compliance with the European Court of Human Rights, and to fulfil the agreement commitment to review the national security certification powers. We also gave a commitment on Second Reading, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, to consider these powers in the light of the ECHR ruling.
The tribunal established by amendments Nos. 193 and 194 represents a major step forward in providing a mechanism through which an individual can challenge a certificate. Amendment No. 193 introduces a new test: not only will the tribunal consider whether an act was undertaken for the reasons stated in the certificate, it will also consider whether the act was justified. Those are important new safeguards for the individual.
Other considerations also apply, however, and must be given due weight. Safeguarding national security is a primary function of all Governments, and we continue to believe that it is essential to protect the intelligence information that gave rise to the original act and, ultimately, to the certificate.
At the same time, we fully accept the need to provide a mechanism through which an individual can challenge a certificate. That remains, and will continue to be, a question of balance. It is a difficult one, but I believe that we have got it right. Indeed, the Court noted in its ruling:
it should be possible to modify judicial procedures in such a way as to safeguard national security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial degree of procedural justice.
The Government believe that we have achieved precisely that balance in establishing the new tribunal. Amendment No. 348 specifically provides that the tribunal will be chaired by an individual holding high judicial office.
The key to achieving the balance appears in proposed subsection (7) in amendment 194, which enables the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate to represent the interests of the appellant. That will ensure that the appellant will be represented fully by a suitably qualified person. However, we cannot provide the appellant with access to what might be extremely sensitive intelligence information or to any part of the proceedings under examination by the tribunal. We were not required to do so by the European Court of Human Rights ruling.
The Government fully recognise that the special advocate provisions are unusual, in that they modify the arrangements one would normally expect to see in appeals


proceedings. However, these arrangements will play an important role in safeguarding national security and they do have a precedent—they are based directly on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, similarly established following a European Court of Human Rights ruling and approved by this House in 1997.
12 midnight
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North has tabled an amendment to remove the provision that, while the special advocate will represent the appellant, he will not be responsible to him. That provision is also based directly on the SIAC, and it might be helpful if I explained briefly why it is necessary.
The special advocate will not be able to take instructions from the appellant in the normal way, because he will have access to information which he cannot share or discuss. It would be wrong, therefore, to impose on the advocate the normal responsibilities one would find in a client-lawyer relationship. The provision reflects the relationship between the advocate and the appellant, but does so in the context that the advocate is required to represent him. I have no doubt that the appellant's case will be argued to the full.
This important provision follows logically from the special advocate arrangements, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will give further consideration to the point. I am sure that we will debate the matter in the time available.
I trust that the House will welcome the establishment of the tribunal. I do know that some hon. Members were concerned about whether the provisions provided sufficient safeguards for individuals. However, I hope that the House will agree that special arrangements—which are based directly on existing statutory provisions—are essential to safeguard national security, and that the balance we have aimed for has been achieved in the amendments, which, again, I commend to the House.

Mr. McNamara: I shall be very quick, because others want to get in. Does the House think that it is fair that a tribunal can take place without the applicant who has suffered a wrong having knowledge of the evidence which is being used against him; that part of it may be held in secret without him or his lawyer being present; that the tribunal, at best, need give him only a summary of what has been said; and that the proceedings may be held in his absence?
What does the House think of a prosecutor, the Attorney-General, appointing a barrister to represent the accused—who is called the appellant or respondent in this case—who has no responsibility to that person at all; who will argue a case in the absence of the accused; who will not be able to make any judgment whatever about the way in which the case has been handled; and who is chosen from a panel picked by his accusers? That cannot be right and fair in any way.
My amendment relates to the part of the Lords amendment No. 194 which says that a person appointed to represent the appellant
shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland … shall not be responsible to the party whose interests he represents.

Therefore, I want to know what reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to the chairman of the Bar Council, because this issue is important to its members. In his letter, the chairman said:
We have just become aware of the proposed procedure in the Government amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill—National Security Certificates whereby the Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party to proceedings before the Tribunal in any proceedings from which he and any legal representative of his are excluded. It is proposed that the person appointed shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and shall not"—
not is underlined—
be responsible to the party whose interests he represents.
He continues:
It is our preliminary view that such a procedure may put the barrister appointed in an impossible situation. By virtue of our Code of Conduct a barrister has certain obligations with which he must comply and we believe it may be impossible for him to discharge some under the above-mentioned procedure.
Accordingly we consider it important that we have the opportunity to discuss and respond to the proposal and we ask you to note our said interest. We await hearing from you as soon as possible.
I tabled a question asking what reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent, but have not yet received a reply. I did not know about the original letter until last Thursday or Friday.
We are talking about a case in which one does not know the evidence against one, one cannot be told it and one cannot be fully represented. One could lose one's livelihood. What is more, one's character is besmirched. In principle, that is as bad as the old exclusion order. It is dressed up and jazzed up, but at the end of the day one just does not know. However, we do know of the malicious way in which those orders have been used in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) seemed to be rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I assumed that he wanted to speak.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Ingram: However, I will not give way, because I have not yet said anything. I was trying to be gracious to the hon. and learned Gentleman in the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised a number of issues, with which I shall try to deal. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for North Down may get a chance to intervene.
On the rights of the individual relative to the rights of the rest of society, we are setting up the tribunal to protect the rights of the individual. However, sensitive intelligence information is gathered by brave men and women who put their lives on the line daily and who are unseen, unheard and in many ways unapplauded because of the nature of their jobs—trying to ensure that those who carry out extreme, or potentially extreme, actions against the state are made known to the authorities. Therefore, when sensitive information is involved, it must be protected, because, by exposing it, we may be exposing the people who have gathered it on behalf of the rest of us.
We have taken account of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and put in place precisely our interpretation of it. We have also put in place mechanisms


to defend the interests of the individual. So the individual's rights are indeed protected, and I entirely refute the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North presented his arguments.
We have dealt with the matter in the right way—right in the interests of the whole of society. We have also achieved the best protection of the rights of the individual that was possible. My hon. Friend also referred to the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. He may not be aware of this, but discussions have been taking place between the council and the Attorney-General. This evening, the Bar Council met and formed a sub-committee to look into the matter in greater detail. It has been charged with reporting to the council within one week. Clearly, we are at the final point—we are moving towards the passage of this legislation. We shall take account of the sub-committee's report to the Government, as members of the Bar will be asked to represent the interests of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The point that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is making is that a balance must be struck between the conflicting interests of the state and the individual. I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way towards meeting European human rights criteria by appointing a barrister to look after the individual's rights and make representations. Presumably the barrister will see the reasons for granting the certificate, but why should he, without revealing the contents of the certificate, be prevented from taking detailed instructions from his client so that he can fully represent that client's interests? I do not believe that the barrister can fully represent his client unless he knows both the client's case and the contents of the certificate.

Mr. Ingram: Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not a lawyer. As I understand the client-lawyer relationship, it would restrict the lawyer if we were to proceed as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests—the lawyer would be in receipt of information that he could not impart to the client or appellant.
The Bar Council in England has also had to consider those matters, although in relation to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I understand that a SIAC case in which the issue will be tested is pending. We shall clearly have to consider whether the measure is robust and strikes a balance between the interests of appellants and of national security.
I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I am sure that the Bar Council of Northern Ireland, in which he takes an interest, will make its representations known through its sub-committee—its concerns will then be subject to further discussion and consultation with the Attorney-General. We are conscious of the difficulties, but we must protect both the national interest and the interest of the appellant.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 194 to 417 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Registration of Political Parties Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to acquaint the House with a message that has been received from the Lords, as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Registration of Political Parties Bill with amendments, to which they desire the agreement of the House. The text of the Lords amendments is available in the Vote Office, as is a separate paper containing the grouping to be proposed by the Member in charge of the Bill.

Ordered,

That the Lords amendments to the Registration of Political Parties Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Betts.]

Lords amendments accordingly considered.

Clause 5

EMBLEMS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 18, leave out ("an emblem" and insert ("up to three emblems").

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 7.

Mr. Howarth: The principal purpose of the registration scheme for political parties is to facilitate the running of the new systems for election to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, we hope, the European Parliament.
The Bill also addresses the problem of misleading candidates' descriptions. That is in part achieved by the introduction of party emblems on the ballot paper. When introduced, the Bill provided that a party could register one emblem, reflecting what we believed to be the position at that time: that all the main political parties used only one emblem. During consideration of the Bill in the other place, the Conservative Party realised, first, that the party in Scotland had a separate emblem and, a few days later, that the party in Wales also had its own emblem.
The amendments address that problem by providing that a party may register up to three emblems. It will be up to each party to determine whether it wants to register an emblem and, if so, whether it registers one, two or three. A candidate from a party that has more than one emblem registered may, however, use only one of them against his or her name on a ballot paper. This modest change will afford some welcome flexibility not only to the Conservative party but to all registered parties. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. John Greenway: After a five-hour interlude, we are back to electoral matters. This is likely to be the final debate in this long Session, but the nature and subject of the amendments is typical of so much that has gone before. We are being asked to examine and approve details of the Government's constitutional reforms that were clearly overlooked in the original


drafting, involving amendments made only this afternoon in another place and an amendment to an amendment passed only on 12 November. There has been no opportunity for anyone to study the Hansard report of the arguments. How could anyone have been aware that we were to consider the Bill tonight, when it was not even on the Order Paper?
The Minister knows that I am charitable, and I do not hold him personally responsible—we have enjoyed working together over the past 18 months on many pieces of legislation, and Conservative Members are grateful for the amendments, which we support—but he will also know that we did not approve of having emblems on ballot papers. Why include emblems when we have managed so long without them? It is becoming increasingly clear that, under the Labour Government, voting for a party is more important than voting for a candidate.
It is clear, as it should have been clear to the Government, that the need for a Bill to register political parties has been prompted by the fact that people will vote for parties in elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; therefore it ought to have been obvious that there would be a requirement for more than three emblems. We objected to emblems and would prefer that no emblems were used, but if the Government want emblems, there ought to be more than three. 1 am surprised that it was not thought of earlier.
We agree with the amendment and are grateful to the Minister and to Lord Williams of Mostyn for the courtesy that they have shown. We feel that sufficient damage has been done to the Government's credibility as regards electoral reform proposals for one day to enable us to accept the amendment, even at this late hour.

Mr. Richard Allan: I shall not delay the House by entering into a debate about who should or should not determine the electoral systems that face the people of this country, but it is important that I register the Liberal Democrats' support for the amendment, which is one that we proposed at various stages during the Bill's passage. It is welcome, because it will allow parties in the constituent parts of Great Britain to register their own emblems in their own right, as Scottish, Welsh or English parties. On that basis, we fully support the Government, who have listened to the representations that were made. Having offered our support and registered it in the Official Report, I shall not detain the House any longer.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8 agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EDUCATION

That the draft Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1998, which were laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance Amendment (New Deal) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.

SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES

That the draft Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Intermediate Health Care (North Norfolk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. David Prior: I am pleased to have secured this vital debate on the future of intermediate care in north Norfolk. The issues raised will resonate in many other rural areas. I shall focus especially on the services provided by our community and cottage hospitals, which include rehabilitation. The deb0ate builds on my Rural and Community Hospitals Bill, which I presented to the House last May, but which fell because of lack of parliamentary time.
In July 1998, the East Norfolk health authority produced for consultation a draft strategy document on intermediate services. The consultation period finished in October and the final decisions are promised next week, on 25 November. I want to use the debate to highlight my great concern about the effects of the health authority's proposed strategy on my constituency. The strategy implies the closure of several hospitals and I hope to elicit the Government's support in preventing any such closures. I think that the views I express are cross-party views in Norfolk, and I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) present in the Chamber at such a late hour, although I sadly note the absence of any Liberal Democrat Members.
There are four community hospitals in North Norfolk, covered by the shadow primary care group North Norfolk Health. They are Benjamin Court in Cromer, Cranmer House in Fakenham, Kelling hospital outside Holt and the Wells cottage hospital. In total, they provide 95 community beds, but the health authority proposes a staggering reduction in that number, to between 16 and 21 beds—a reduction of 80 per cent. Most incredibly, Benjamin Court is to be reduced from 36 beds to none. Benjamin Court, I should add, is almost brand new. That reduction, if implemented, would undermine the viability of Wells, Cranmer House and Benjamin Court. The most likely survivor is Kelling, for which the health authority suggest a much reduced requirement for 12 to 15 beds. That is ironic, because only two years ago Kelling was the hospital that the health authority was most determined to close. So much for consistency.
Are the health authority's forecasts for bed requirements right? Let us consider in contrast the views of North Norfolk Health, the primary care group. North Norfolk Health comprises 34 general practitioners in eight practices, covering 62,000 patients. Its assessment is that it needs not 16 to 21 beds, as the health authority suggests, but 65 to 75 beds. It believes that the health authority should do all it can to keep the cottage hospitals open in North Norfolk. North Norfolk Health's assessment calls for nearly five times the number of beds proposed by the health authority. In the case of Benjamin Court, North Norfolk Health see a minimum need of at least 23 beds, but the health authority see a demand for none.
Those discrepancies are massive and raise grave questions about the health authority's strategy. It is not good enough for the health authority to state:
Further analysis work will be undertaken with local primary care groups at the implementation stage.
It will be too late by then.
Because of the discrepancies, the health authority, in October, belatedly and after the end of the consultation exercise, felt obliged to have an independent review of bed requirements by a consultancy firm called RKW. One might feel that that was rather late in the day, rather rushed and somewhat less than satisfactory. Personally, I am wholly underwhelmed by the review, not least because it provided no figures for north Norfolk, only for Norfolk as a whole; yet north Norfolk is a special case and different, because it has more existing community hospitals, more elderly people and, because it is so rural, suffers from public transport problems.
RKW came up with a range of community bed requirements for Norfolk of between 176 and 234. The higher end of the range is some 50 beds more than proposed by the health authority. When RKW announced its findings, it was accompanied by a great flash of intellectual brilliance when a spokesman for the company said, with no obvious irony:
We are not able to predict what will happen in the future.
Quite. No one knows how many community beds will be needed in the future, and we do not need an expert to tell us that. It would be absurd to make any decisions based on the figures so far presented. If any of those figures are reliable, I would put my money on those from North Norfolk Health, because it is closer to the patients and their clinical requirements.
The shambles over community bed numbers is matched by that over rehabilitation bed numbers. The health authority proposes 124 rehabilitation beds for Norfolk, excluding Great Yarmouth. By contrast, the department for medicine for the elderly based at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital believes that 180 beds will be needed—some 56 more. Moreover, RKW has produced another set of numbers which is nearly 50 per cent. higher than the health authority's number, and much closer to the number suggested by the department of medicine for the elderly. The same uncertainty that surrounds community beds also surrounds rehabilitation beds. Which figures are right? Evidently, no real science is involved.
RKW believes that, overall for Norfolk, as many as 416 community and rehabilitation beds may be needed, whereas the health authority thinks that only 316 beds are needed. Decisions about the future of our hospitals must not be taken on the basis of such uncertainty, not least because such decisions are irreversible.
Moreover, a number of other hugely significant factors, some of which are peculiar to Norfolk, also militate against taking any major decision on the basis of the health authority's strategy. First, North Norfolk Health will cease to be a shadow primary care group on 1 April next year when it will come into real existence with real powers. As stated in the Government's 1997 White Paper, the primary care groups
understand patient needs and they deliver local services. That is why they will be in the driving seat in shaping local services.
North Norfolk Health has made it clear that it wants to retain the community hospitals, and to use their beds. It cannot be right that the health authority should, only four months before the PCG starts, pre-empt that view on such a critical issue.


Secondly, the Minister will be aware that a new hospital is currently under construction to replace the Norfolk and Norwich hospital and the West Norwich hospital. The number of beds in the acute hospital will reduce from 1,037 to 809, a reduction of 228. There is already much local concern about that reduction, and it is aggravated by the suspicion that there is already pressure on the Norfolk and Norwich to discharge patients early to cut waiting lists. Many general practitioners in Norfolk talk openly about a revolving door syndrome, by which, to reduce waiting lists, patients are discharged from the acute Norfolk and Norwich hospital too early, only to be readmitted later.
With fewer beds in the new hospital, there will be added dangers of bed blocking and of rising waiting lists if there are too few community and rehabilitation beds. That concern has been highlighted both by Dr. Coni, a retired geriatrician from Addenbrooke's hospital, who has conducted independent clinical research on the health authority's behalf, and by the department of medicine for the elderly. In its submission to the health authority, that department said:
The proposed reduction in rehab and community beds will lead to a large number of patients waiting in the acute hospital for intermediate care, which will in turn seriously affect the acute hospital's ability to meet its waiting list targets for elective surgery … Without adequate intermediate services the ability of the acute hospital to function effectively will be seriously compromised … Quite clearly the access to intermediate services in community hospitals is of crucial importance to the acute hospital.
Too great a reduction in community hospital beds could undermine the effectiveness of the new hospital and increase waiting lists. That risk cannot be worth taking. We must have some insurance in the system.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about alternative suggestions, and about the report into travel times from his constituency to the new facilities? Will there be a major problem with the travel facilities? Will he comment on the conditions in the new facilities?

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I can return to those points a little later.
The third factor I want to mention is the direct relationship between intermediate care and social services. Despite the eligibility criteria, it is right for patients to stay longer in hospital if there are no proper and adequate social services back-ups in the community. This year, Norfolk county council has had to reduce social service spending by more than £4 million, and a similar saving has been identified for next year. Until the Government are prepared to recognise the extra costs of delivering social services in rural areas and to an elderly population, the squeeze will continue.
The independent RKW research assumes that increased social service provision will reduce the need for 21 beds in Norfolk, and that a further 58 beds could be dispensed with because the length of stay in a bed will decrease. Both assumptions are highly suspect. My gut feeling is that, far from there being a reduction in the demand for beds, we may need to increase their number simply to compensate for fewer resources being available from social services.
The fourth factor is that the Secretary of State announced on 30 September a national inquiry into hospital beds because, as he said:
It became clear last winter that in some parts of the country the scale of closures had gone too far.
That inquiry is due to report next spring. It may produce useful methodology, guidelines, evidence and ideas. It should not be pre-empted.
Finally, in 1999, the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly will report. It will have something to say about the eligibility criteria for NHS beds and about the overlap between the NHS and the private sector. It may even suggest ways—I hope it does—of attracting private money into supporting community hospitals. The royal commission's terms of reference specifically include considering the options for funding long-term care for elderly people in their own homes and other settings. That review, which will have taken two years of exhaustive research, also should not be pre-empted.
The confusion and uncertainty over bed numbers, the impossibility of seeing clearly into the future and the particular uncertainties facing Norfolk at this time argue strongly for no precipitate, radical change now; yet the health authority's strategy reveals that its goal is clearly revolutionary change. I shall quote a few extracts from that document, which will give a flavour of it. It says:
This is a plan for change. It is a far-reaching plan … Change is needed … Older style community hospitals will close.
The most hackneyed and meaningless soundbite of all says:
We need to make some fundamental changes if we are to develop health services fit for the next millennium.
That is cool Britannia-speak, not a cool, clinical assessment.
A further, overpowering reason against radical change is the public's overwhelming support for our community hospitals. Their support is based on their personal experience of the quality of care received by patients, relatives and friends and the fact that it is delivered locally, and it is manifested by massive voluntary financial support and a huge number of volunteer visitors.
The community hospitals are part of our local fabric in North Norfolk. We are not starting with a clean piece of paper, however much the health authority would like that. We are starting with a number of institutions that have attracted a great deal of good will over generations, perform a vital public service and have a committed, dedicated and professional staff. As Dr. Coni from Addenbrookes has said:
Now is not the time to pull down the edifice; it is time to build on what is there.
Dr. Coni is the clinician appointed by the health authority to give his clinical views after a lifetime in geriatrics.
That is also the view of the North Norfolk GPs and the department for medicine for the elderly at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. There is no clinical case to support the closure of the community hospitals, quite the reverse. Now is absolutely the worst time to try to make any such decision. It would be a travesty if any such plans were approved.

Dr. Gibson: Did not Dr. Coni also say that the do-nothing option was not on?

Mr. Prior: I am not for one minute saying that we should do nothing—far from it. There is a strong case


for specialist rehabilitation centres. I am particularly in favour of the rehabilitation centre at Cromer, and all the traffic analysis by the university of East Anglia, to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier, suggests that Cromer is the right location. We should not rule out options for the future and we should not decide now to close community hospitals when the facts do not support those decisions. If the health authority comes to any such decision, I would ask the Secretary of State to review the decision and take evidence from the clinical experts, including the GPs, the experts in geriatrics at the Norfolk and Norwich, and Dr. Coni, and to give weight to the common sense of all those who use, work for and support our community hospitals. The health authority's plans for intermediate care in North Norfolk are not acceptable.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing time for this important debate. The hon. Gentleman has, quite properly, expressed his concerns about the future of intermediate health services in Norfolk. I shall respond to the specific issues that he has raised, but first I shall set out the current position.
East Norfolk health authority, as the hon. Gentleman said, is in the process of preparing its intermediate care strategy. There has been extensive consultation, but no decision will be made until 25 November, when the health authority meets in public. The final strategy will then be decided.
The first stage of the consultation finished on 13 October, and the health authority is now considering its outcome. There will need to be a further period of full consultation if there is to be any significant variation in services which might be necessary to implement the agreed strategy. No decision can or will be taken behind closed doors. The health authority has been particularly open in its debate on the draft strategy "Facing the Future". Indeed, I am aware that the hon. Gentleman congratulated the health authority on its open approach.
Already the health authority has received more than 1,400 responses, and about 3,000 people have attended the 12 public meetings to discuss the strategy. I understand that three public meetings were held in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at Cromer, Fakenham and Holt. Although he was unable to attend any of them, I am well aware of his concerns and his desire to protect the community hospitals in his constituency.
Community hospitals are an established part of the local health service and rightly enjoy a great deal of local support. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the staff in the community hospitals that he mentioned.
Intermediate care is a new way of organising those services that do not require the resources of a general hospital but are beyond the scope of the traditional primary care team. Intermediate care is a flexible concept, and the content of any intermediate care strategy will vary according to local need. It is about better ways of working and providing a seamless service for patients.
One of the factors that we need to consider is the role of intermediate care and other new models of care such as telemedicine in a modern NHS. There is a clear need to explore and evaluate those models of care and to share good practice right across the NHS. In recent years, we have made funds available through the continuing care challenge fund and winter pressures moneys to pilot this type of innovation within the service.
In the work that has been done in east Norfolk, intermediate care is defined as NHS community beds, rehabilitation and day treatment. The health authority's draft strategy for intermediate care identified an approach to determine the equitable provision of intermediate services in the future, and then it identified possible locations where services needed to be provided in order to respond to demand. It has also estimated the number of beds needed in each area.
The hon. Gentleman referred repeatedly to his concerns about those estimates. I know that others have expressed concern about the proposed number of beds. As he said, the health authority has commissioned independent research into that subject. The health authority strategy is now being reviewed in the light of the independent research, and a decision will be taken next week.
As has happened in other parts of the country, services have developed piecemeal over the years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that. The health authority is of the view that the current service provided does not reflect population changes and the immense progress in medicine, which has resulted in shorter stays in hospital. In its view, the present provision does not give fair access to community beds across the county.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are seven community hospitals in East Norfolk—Kelling, St. Michael's in Aylsham, Wells, North Walsham, Dereham, Wayland in Attleborough and Northgate in Great Yarmouth, which deliver a range of NHS services. Four of those are in north Norfolk—Kelling, North Walsham, Wells and St. Michael's. The health authority considers that that current layout of community hospitals is not equitable and that many people have to travel outside their area for in-patient NHS treatment. My understanding is that the health authority strategy aims to provide a much fairer pattern of NHS community beds across the whole of east Norfolk. Of the 458 beds covered by the review, 207 are in north Norfolk.

Mr. Prior: I am not an expert on hospitals or medicine. I can only repeat the views of the clinicians who have worked in north Norfolk, the general practitioners who will form the new primary care group, the experts in geriatrics at Norfolk and Norwich hospital, and now the independent firm of research consultants. They have come up with requirement levels for north Norfolk that are vastly different from those of the health authority.

Mr. Hutton: I shall come to that issue in a moment. My understanding is that the health authority, having


commissioned that independent research, is now reviewing its strategy in the light of it. It would be premature to speculate and try to predict the results of that reconsideration ahead of the meeting on 25 November.
As I have said, 1 understand that 458 beds are covered by the review. Some 207 are in north Norfolk, 173 are in south Norfolk, 48 are in the Great Yarmouth area, but only 30 are in Norwich—the largest centre of population in the county. Only 27 out of 86 GP practices in east Norfolk have direct access to GP beds. I understand that no Norwich-based GP can refer direct to a community bed. That need to provide an equitable, quality service is the driving force behind the health authority's strategy.
The draft strategy will consider a number of new facilities, including an NHS centre with community beds in Norwich, new rehabilitation units for Norwich and Cromer—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—and day treatment and therapy centres for Norwich, Cromer, Great Yarmouth and Diss or Thetford. In considering the future of the community hospitals, occupancy levels were also considered as part of the strategy review. In north Norfolk, they have not been high. Until recently, figures showed that, of those 458 beds, an average of only about 340 were occupied at any one time.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government are committed to providing the first-class national health service that the nation needs for the next millennium, which will provide the best possible balance and range of services for local people. We set out our plans for modernising the national health service in our White Paper last autumn. It is clear that hospitals will need to develop and evolve to meet the changing needs and expectations of the public and clinical advances. In some cases, that will mean building new hospitals; in others, it may mean closing old ones, changing their use, or using hospital facilities in new and different ways.
Hospitals and trusts will need to work more closely together and replace competition with co-operation and a renewed emphasis on improving quality, including national standards and clinical audit. As part of that modernisation programme, the Government have already approved 31 major hospital developments, worth almost £2.4 billion. That is the biggest renewal and modernisation programme in the history of the national health service. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the largest private finance initiative health project yet agreed is the £214 million new hospital on the outskirts of Norwich that will serve much of north Norfolk and the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am sure that he will want to welcome that major investment in the national health service in Norfolk.
The Government do not intend that hospital services will develop and evolve in a vacuum. New national service frameworks will provide a clear structure within which local hospital services should develop. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health

announced recently, we have set up a national beds inquiry to review the needs and best usage of hospital facilities—particularly beds—to provide clear and strategic direction for the NHS locally in planning and developing services.
The Government are committed to the NHS, and have pledged large sums of money, which shows that commitment. Only this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health announced £180 million of capital investment for the new Eastern region next year. Last week, we announced a cash increase of £22.9 million for East Norfolk in its allocation for next year—a real-terms increase of nearly 4 per cent.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Norfolk failed to refer to that, but he did mention what he thought were pressures on social services budgets. It may be of interest to him that, under the terms of the comprehensive spending review, we were also able to announce significant increases for social services over the next three years, amounting to £3 billion. In addition to all that extra cash, for this year £3.2 million has been pledged to help East Norfolk to tackle waiting lists and winter pressures.
On the role of community hospitals, our White Paper recognised that community hospitals have been sidelined too often in the past. Our aim is to provide a service which offers swift advice and treatment, as close to where people live as possible. Community hospitals will be an important part of delivering such services and may, in many cases, provide an appropriate setting for intermediate care services. They will, however, have to fit into plans for the wider health and social care systems—and meet the same quality standards and fairness and efficiency tests—as other parts of the health care system.
There is no single national blueprint which will suit different localities. That is why it is the job of health authorities to ensure that local services are matched to local needs. There is no doubt that community hospitals, in some form, will have a key role to play—where they are appropriate and can provide a safe, clinically effective and efficient service for their locality. It is right that the future of community hospitals in Norfolk, as elsewhere, should be decided on that basis.
Under our White Paper proposals, primary care groups and trusts will be a focus for better integrating primary and community care services. Clearly, they will have a role in delivering intermediate care services, but the health authority has a strategic role in examining the overall pattern and range of services.
We must take into account whether any change in local health services will improve care for patients, and that applies to community hospitals just as much as to any other part of health service provision. No part of health care stands alone: it is an interconnected system—between primary, community and acute services. How that is delivered will differ from one area to another.
Ministers can become involved only if a local community health council objects to any of the proposals. Until such time, we must remain objective and impartial. In its draft strategy, the health authority states that the quality of patient care matters most. It is also a matter of equity. Those are both tenets to which the Government


clearly subscribe, and the Anglia and Oxford regional office—and, subsequently, the Eastern regional office—will be monitoring the situation to ensure that those considerations prevail.
If the matter is to come before Ministers—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to One o'clock.